Bill C-30 (Historical)

Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act

An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures

This enactment implements the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States, done at Brussels on October 30, 2016.
The general provisions of the enactment set out rules of interpretation and specify that no recourse may be taken on the basis of sections 9 to 14 or any order made under those sections, or on the basis of the provisions of the Agreement, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Part 1 approves the Agreement and provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenses associated with the operation of the institutional and administrative aspects of the Agreement and for the power of the Governor in Council to make orders in accordance with the Agreement.
Part 2 amends certain Acts to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Agreement and to make other modifications. In addition to making the customary amendments that are made to certain Acts when implementing such agreements, Part 2 amends
(a) the Export and Import Permits Act to, among other things,
(i) authorize the Minister designated for the purposes of that Act to issue export permits for goods added to the Export Control List and subject to origin quotas in a country or territory to which the Agreement applies,
(ii) authorize that Minister, with respect to goods subject to origin quotas in another country that are added to the Export Control List for certain purposes, to determine the quantities of goods subject to such quotas and to issue export allocations for such goods, and
(iii) require that Minister to issue an export permit to any person who has been issued such an export allocation;
(b) the Patent Act to, among other things,
(i) create a framework for the issuance and administration of certificates of supplementary protection, for which patentees with patents relating to pharmaceutical products will be eligible, and
(ii) provide further regulation-making authority in subsection 55.‍2(4) to permit the replacement of the current summary proceedings in patent litigation arising under regulations made under that subsection with full actions that will result in final determinations of patent infringement and validity;
(c) the Trade-marks Act to, among other things,
(i) protect EU geographical indications found in Annex 20-A of the Agreement,
(ii) provide a mechanism to protect other geographical indications with respect to agricultural products and foods,
(iii) provide for new grounds of opposition, a process for cancellation, exceptions for prior use for certain indications, for acquired rights and for certain terms considered to be generic, and
(iv) transfer the protection of the Korean geographical indications listed in the Canada–Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act into the Trade-marks Act;
(d) the Investment Canada Act to raise, for investors that are non-state-owned enterprises from countries that are parties to the Agreement or to other trade agreements, the threshold as of which investments are reviewable under Part IV of the Act; and
(e) the Coasting Trade Act to
(i) provide that the requirement in that Act to obtain a licence is not applicable for certain activities carried out by certain non-duty paid or foreign ships that are owned by a Canadian entity, EU entity or third party entity under Canadian or European control, and
(ii) provide, with respect to certain applications for a licence for dredging made on behalf of certain of those ships, for exemptions from requirements that are applicable to the issuance of a licence.
Part 3 contains consequential amendments and Part 4 contains coordinating amendments and the coming-into-force provision.

Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

moved that Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today. There has never been a more important time in our history to talk about trade. Therefore, I am going to talk about Bill C-30. I would invite all my colleagues on both sides to really take this opportunity to rise to the challenge that we are facing.

Twenty years from now we will remember the moment that we seized as parliamentarians to really move forward on trade. The world is waiting for us to ratify this agreement. This is going to be great for Canada. This is going to be great for Europe. This is the gold standard of international agreements.

Obviously, I am delighted to rise in the House today to speak to a very important bill, Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, or CETA.

As Minister of International Trade, CETA is one of my top priorities. Many ministers have worked on this free trade agreement in recent years and, thanks to their efforts, the Prime Minister was able to sign this agreement in Brussels at the end of October 2016.

CETA negotiations began in 2008. It took many years of hard work to reach an agreement that addresses issues that have never been covered in Canada's other trade agreements, including NAFTA.

It is now up to us, as parliamentarians, to complete the legislative process and bring CETA into force so that all Canadians can finally benefit from it. This agreement is the result of a historic initiative to promote the prosperity of our country, and I would venture to say that Canadians in each of the 338 ridings represented in the House of Commons will benefit from it.

By signing this agreement we are gaining market access and improved trade conditions that go beyond the NAFTA provisions. What is more, we achieved this in a progressive and responsible way. This agreement will provide Canada with the growth and jobs it needs, while fully upholding Canadian and European standards in areas such as food safety, environmental protection, and workers' rights.

CETA will open opportunities for Canadian businesses in the EU's estimated $3.3-trillion government procurement market. Once CETA enters into force, Canadian firms will be able to supply goods and select services to all levels of EU government, including the EU's 28 member states and thousands of regional and local government entities. Imagine the opportunities for all the SMEs here at home.

Under CETA, consumers will benefit from lower prices and a wider range of choices. This agreement will also be beneficial for workers, since it will create more high-quality jobs associated with exports. It will also be beneficial for our businesses, no matter their size, as they will see lower costs resulting from the elimination of tariff and non-tariff trade barriers.

This is a progressive trade agreement that prioritizes the middle class, opens new markets to Canadian producers, and means greater prosperity for Canadians from one end of our great country to the other.

I would like to talk about the importance of trade. Canada's participation in international trade is vital to the entire nation's prosperity. Canada has always been a trading nation. Exports are key to our economy. They contribute to growth, productivity, and, of course, employment. Taken together, they represent about 30% of Canada's GDP. One in six Canadian jobs depends directly or indirectly on our export activities.

The small and medium-sized businesses in all of our ridings play a leading role in our economy. Employing some 10 million Canadians, they account for nearly 90% of private-sector employment in Canada.

Small businesses alone make up 90% of Canadian exporters and, in 2011, were responsible for $68 billion, or 25%, of the total value of exports. Creating new commercial opportunities for SMEs is therefore essential to growing our economy, because job growth and opportunities for the middle class depend on those businesses.

In 2015, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada released a report profiling SMEs and their characteristics as Canadian exporters. The report found that 10% of Canadian SMEs exported goods and services in 2011, with export sales accounting for about 4% of total company revenues.

The report also points to superior financial performance by exporters compared with non-exporters. Specifically, exporters generated higher sales, pre-tax profit margins, and returns on assets, on average, compared with non-exporters.

In addition, the report indicated that exporters are more research and development intensive than non-exporters, spending 8% of annual revenues on R and D, on average, compared with 6% for non-exporters.

Lastly, exporters are also more growth oriented than non-exporters. Indeed, the sales of 10% of exporters grew by 20% or more per year between 2009 and 2011 compared to only 8% of non-exporters.

I know that my colleagues in the House already appreciate the fact that trade and, in particular, the role of small businesses within all our ridings, is important to Canada's economic growth.

SMEs clearly play a major role in fostering the future prosperity of the country, and Canada firmly believes in the importance of helping our SMEs to be successful because this will create jobs and strengthen the middle class across the country. Concrete tools such as CETA are important as they motivate businesses and encourage them to seize opportunities in major foreign markets such as the European Union.

I will now turn to the government's role and the impact of the positive trade policy on Canada's businesses. The findings of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada's report support our government's continuing commitment to stimulating growth of SMEs and advancing an export agenda by entering into new trade agreements. These agreements help our SMEs because they ensure access to export markets abroad and they create conditions conducive to the competitive participation in these markets.

This is especially true in the context of current global value chains because international production requires goods to cross many borders. It is especially important to facilitate the flow of goods across borders to ensure the success of our businesses today and tomorrow.

The European Union is a key market for global value chains. It has more Fortune 500 companies than any other place in the world, including the United States. Broader access to these value chains provides a large number of Canadian SMEs a major opportunity to realize their goals and aspirations on an international scale.

I know that every member of the House would like to help the SMEs in their ridings conquer those markets, and CETA is another tool in the toolbox for our SMEs. Canada's SME exporters continue to focus predominantly on the U.S., with 89% of exporters selling to the United States and 74% of the value of exports generated by U.S. sales.

With CETA, we will see SMEs diversify their exports and pursue opportunities in the European Union, the world's second-largest market for goods. The EU's annual imports alone are worth more than Canada's entire GDP.

In this period of slower economic growth and of growing protectionist and even anti-trade tendencies in many areas of the world, it is particularly important to implement agreements such as CETA.

I will give an overview of CETA for all of my colleagues in the House. CETA represents many firsts for free trade in Canada and the European Union. CETA sets new standards in trade in goods and services, non-tariff barriers, investments, and government procurement, as well as in other areas such as labour and environment.

It offers preferential access to the large, dynamic European market.

It creates tremendous opportunities and gives Canadian businesses a real competitive edge.

It gives Canadian businesses a first-mover advantage compared to their competitors from other markets, such as the United States, which do not have trade agreements with the European Union.

CETA is a comprehensive trade agreement. Once it comes into force, it will cover almost every sector and aspect related to trade between Canada and the European Union. Of the EU's some 9,000 tariff lines, approximately 98% will be duty free for Canadian goods as soon as the agreement comes into force, as compared to the current 25%. An additional 1% will be cut over a seven-year phase-out period.

This agreement is vital to create growth in Canada and, as we know, growth means jobs for the middle class.

The elimination of tariffs under CETA creates immense opportunities for many of Canada's exports to the EU, where tariffs remain high. Let me give members a few examples: fish and seafood, which secures an EU tariff of up to 25%; wood, with an EU tariff of up to 8%; information and communications technology products, with EU tariffs of up to 14%; and machinery equipment, with EU tariffs of up to 8%.

Canadian services providers will also benefit from the best-quality market access the EU, the world's largest importer of services, has ever provided in a trade agreement, as well as the most ambitious commitments on temporary entry the EU has ever been granted.

Beyond increased market access, CETA includes many other significant achievements.

A protocol of conformity assessment will allow Canadian manufacturers in certain sectors to have their products tested and certified in Canada for sale in the EU. This is a significant innovation that will save companies time and money and will be particularly useful to small and medium-sized businesses.

This is also the first bilateral trade agreement in which Canada has included a stand-alone chapter on regulatory co-operation, which is forward looking and promotes early engagement as measures are being developed.

As well, CETA includes a detailed framework for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, a key aspect of labour mobility.

Canada is one of the largest exporters of services in the world. It exported $16 billion in services to the EU in 2015 alone. CETA gives Canadian service suppliers the best market access the EU has ever granted to any of its free trade agreement partners. CETA will ensure that Canadian service suppliers compete on an equal footing with domestic providers, in certain sectors, and receive better treatment than most competitors from non-EU countries.

Provisions set out in the chapter on cross-border trade in services will provide for better market access assurances in many sectors of interest to Canada's economy, including professional services, environmental services, technical testing and analysis services, and research and development services. This is great news for all Canadian entrepreneurs.

CETA's labour mobility provisions will also enhance the ability of Canadians and EU business persons to move across borders. CETA provisions will make it easier for short-term business visitors, intra-company transferees, investors, contract service suppliers, and independent professionals to conduct business in the EU.

Investment also forms a substantial portion of the Canada-EU economic relationship. In 2015, the known stock of direct investment by Canadian companies in the EU totalled $210 billion, representing 21% of known Canadian direct investment abroad. In the same year, the known stock of direct investment from European companies in Canada totalled $242 billion, representing over 31% of known total foreign investment in Canada.

These numbers are significant. Canada needs more investment. More investment means more jobs for Canadian workers and more growth for our economy and a stronger middle class, something that each and every member in this House would be able to support. CETA provides greater incentive for EU companies to choose Canada as the attractive destination in this world for their investments.

CETA includes provisions to facilitate the establishment of investment, to protect investors against such practices as discriminatory treatment, uncompensated expropriation, arbitrary or abusive conduct, and to ensure that capital may be freely transferred. CETA's obligations are backed by a mechanism for the resolution of investment disputes, which includes both a first instance tribunal and an appellate tribunal.

Let me tell the House about the progressive nature of CETA, and that should make every member of this House very proud. Investment and dispute resolution are some of the themes that have been discussed at length here in Canada and across the EU. Canadian and EU citizens have voiced views and concerns on these important issues, and others, such as environmental protection, workers' rights, consumer health and safety, and a government's right to regulate.

One of the most important things that our government did right after taking office was to listen to the critics of CETA, critics who were gaining steam both in Canada and in Europe, and to understand some of the legitimate concerns people had. We worked with Canadians, including industry and civil society alike and, I would say, members and critics on the other side as well. Together with the EU, we responded to ensure that the economic gains from implementing this agreement would not come at the expense of these vital elements.

This includes making changes during the legal review of the agreement, as well as publishing a joint interpretative instrument with the EU at the time of the signature of CETA. It provided a clear and non-ambiguous statement of what Canada and the EU and its member states agreed with respect to a number of CETA provisions, including those in areas of public concern. CETA cements the paramount right of democratic governments to regulate in the interests of citizens on the environment, on labour standards, and in defence of the public sector. This is even more important in today's world, where we are faced with increasingly challenging times for trade and the global economy.

Let me tell the House about CETA in the world, the context we are living in today, in conclusion. We are seeing many nations now turning more inward and pursuing more protectionist measures following decades of ever-increasing openness. Many people are feeling that globalization has left them behind. People are faced with income inequality. They are suffering from economic hardships. They are worried about their jobs and future prospects. These are real and legitimate concerns.

That is why, at my first WTO meeting, I said to all the ministers, “Let us have a WTO for the people. Let us always make the people first in whatever decision we are taking.” It is all about people.

However, closing borders is not a solution. Doing so will decimate economic growth and make us all poorer as a result, especially for a trading nation like Canada, for which participation in global commerce is key to our prosperity. This path is clearly a perilous direction.

In conclusion, that is why it is important that Canada stands up to this protectionist trend and continues moving toward an open society for free and open trade. We must do so in a way that puts the middle class at the centre of our ambitions and at the heart of any deal. Not only is this the right thing to do, it is in our national economic interest to do it. I urge every member to speak in favour of CETA, vote in favour of CETA and for decades to come, people will remember what we did, a historic agreement.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to see that the Liberal government has followed through on our commitment to put into place CETA.

I am concerned about one part of the agreement. The agreement itself is good, but there are some commitments that our government made that were clear to the supply-managed sectors and to the fisheries investment fund for Newfoundland and Labrador.

I wonder if my colleague would comment and actually commit here today in the House that his government will follow through on the commitment that our government made to the supply-managed sectors, especially dairy, and also to the fisheries investment fund for Newfoundland and Labrador.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, the first thing I will do is acknowledge that this has been an effort that has been made on both sides of the aisle. I am fortunate to be occupying this seat in the ministry at this time, and I do recognize that it has been a joint effort in getting us to where we are.

I met with the dairy industry yesterday. I meet with people every day, and I can reassure the member that we will protect supply management. I have said that publicly and also to our farmers.

With respect to Newfoundland and Labrador, I am aware of the situation. We will respect our commitment, because it is in the best interest of all Canadians. I want to make sure that all Canadians, wherever they live in Canada, see the benefit of CETA for themselves and their families.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his passionate speech about trade. I share a passion for trade with him as the critic for our party, and we are strongly in favour of trade, but fair trade.

We need trade agreements that address all issues. Unfortunately, I did not hear the minister bring up the very real issue in CETA about the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. Twenty-five per cent of the implementing legislation in CETA are changes to the Patent Act that will extend the cost of pharmaceutical drugs for all Canadians.

I certainly heard the minister speak passionately about average people, average Canadians in our country feeling left out of trade deals, and it is largely because the governments of the day refuse to address the real issues and how they will impact Canadians in their everyday lives. I would like to speak to the minister about that and say that Canadians have very serious concerns about the cost of pharmaceutical drugs in CETA due to the patent changes that I mentioned.

Mr. Verheul, the lead negotiator for CETA, visited the trade committee and said that they do not really have an analysis on the increased cost of drugs due to the patent changes. We know that Health Canada was required to provide one to the PBO study.

My question is simple to the minister. Do you have internal studies projecting the cost of drugs to Canadians, yes or no?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will remind the member to address the question to the Chair and not to the individual member.

The hon. Minister of International Trade.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to extend kind words to the NDP critic. We already spoke on a number of issues, and I am blessed to have colleagues like her on the other side who are looking at progressive trade agreements in the same way that we are.

I cannot exactly address the member's question, but I promise to get back to her on that.

I can say that, in my first mission as the minister of international trade, everyone I met at the WTO said that this agreement is the gold standard in the world. It is the model for the world. Just about every minister who was at this WTO conference in Davos, Switzerland came to me and said that we have crafted with Europe the gold standard, whether we are talking about the environment or workers' rights. I explained to them that we want to be a leader in progressive trade.

I am sure that the NDP critic will work with me to make sure that everywhere we go in the world, whether together or individually, we will promote Canada as the champion of progressive trade in every instance that we can around the world.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my friend on the other side for his appointment as Minister of International Trade.

There is no doubt that an agreement with an economy that is about eight times bigger than Canada, the European Union, is great news for Canada. It is always great to have trade and to establish trade relations.

The hon. member mentioned something about supply management and how it is effectively working for the European Union, which I know we practise here too. In comparison, does the hon. member have any idea how that works best for us compared to the European Union, and are we on a level playing field in this case?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member and I have the pleasure of sitting on the finance committee together. He has always been a constructive member in whatever we did.

Let me just remind members of the benefits of CETA. I mentioned a number of them obviously in my speech. We are going to be touring across Canada to explain the benefits of CETA because in every riding of this nation people are going to benefit from this agreement.

There are some things that we need to remember for Canadian businesses. CETA would reduce red tape and reduce barriers to trade. It would provide access to public contracts at all levels of government in the European Union. It would improve access to trade in services and would improve labour mobility. These are just a few examples.

I would like the critic and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in explaining CETA to Canadians as well as its benefits to them and their families.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, a week or two ago I was visited in my office by representatives of the IOWU and the Seafarers International Union of Canada, who have been closely following CETA since it was negotiated. They expressed very loudly their well-founded concerns about the impact of CETA on cabotage rules in Canada, specifically on the rules that will allow European ships for the very first time in Canadian history to ply internal Canadian waters and engage in the dredging of our ports. Beside the obvious impact on security in our country by having foreign-flagged, foreign-crewed vessels plying our internal waters, something the U.S. has never allowed and to this day will not allow under the Jones Act, these representatives are concerned about the loss of the good, well-paying jobs of longshore union members and seafarers.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could answer their concerns. What can he say to them when they say the minute the government signs CETA, Canada will lose good paying jobs on its internal waterways?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want my hon. colleague to convey to the members of the unions that he just referred to that my door is always open to meet them. Since my appointment, I have sent a message saying that I will be happy to sit down with them. The member may know that my riding is close to the St. Lawrence River. I meet these people regularly. I would be happy to meet individuals from across the nation if they want to come and see me to discuss the issue. My door is always open.

We want to make this work for all Canadians. I am sure members appreciate that this is the gold standard of trade agreements.

I am certainly willing to meet with those individuals and I hope my colleague will convey that message. I will listen to them and we will work together to improve the situation for all Canadians through CETA.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister on his new appointment.

Would you also agree with the B.C. minister—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member to address his question through the Chair.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Sorry, Madam Speaker.

Would the minister also agree with B.C. trade minister Teresa Wat, who said that compared to NAFTA, CETA is Canada's most historic trade agreement?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, there has never been a better moment to be the minister of international trade, because at every forum I have attended people have looked at Canada because of its progressive trade agenda.

I want to stress that we achieved this because we worked with people in the NDP and the Conservative Party. We worked with everyone in the House and also with our European colleagues to make sure that this agreement would be the gold standard.

Honestly, everywhere I have been in the world people refer to Canada and the EU as beacons of free and open trade. People are looking at our agreement and saying it should be the basis of all future trade agreements. I could not be prouder.

The member is totally right.

We will continue to push forward. I invite all members to do the historical thing and that is to vote for CETA.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join the debate on Bill C-30, an act implementing our latest free trade agreement with the European Union. I was very glad to hear the minister speak on the subject. I congratulate him as well on his appointment to the ministry. For all those who did not make it, their time will come I am sure, when the minister faces tough questions and will be unable to answer them in the House.

As I have done before, I have a Yiddish proverb, and I love using them. “Words must be weighed, not counted”. I know when it comes to counting words in the House, two members will disagree with me that they should be weighed. The member for Winnipeg North and my dear colleague, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, might disagree with me in their race to the top. However, weighing the words is far more important.

I know many members have come to the House to talk about the details of the bill, the different sections they agree with or agree less with, and the impact it will have on Canada's economy. I want to take it back just a little to talk about the meaning of free trade, the meaning it has had for Canada, and the impact it has had on our history.

Canada has been a trading nation from the very beginning, since pre-Confederation, by our forefathers and those who came here early on when beaver pelts were considered the currency of our country.

In the earliest debates on Confederation at the time, when Canada was founded, there were great debates on how Canada would become a true country. They were about the maritime customs union. That is what the early pre-Confederation politicians of the day were debating. It took Sir John A. Macdonald, taking charge of the situation and hijacking these meetings, to turn it into a discussion about how they could form Canada, a country devoted to trading, both within the British Empire and with our neighbours to the south. From that moment on, the great debates in our country have truly been about how we can make free trade work for us.

At the time, those debates were called reciprocity. The reciprocity treaty had been annulled the year before, in 1866, and that was the great foundation of our country. That impulse that we no longer could trade as easily with the United States, formed a great need among politicians to come together, create Canada and be able to trade more openly with our British motherland, the great mother parliament.

It was Alexander Mackenzie, the second prime minister of Canada, a great Liberal prime minister, a great believer in free trade, who said that reciprocity was really what Canada was all about. It was very important to him and to his party that it be implemented and returned to what it was.

As I mentioned, it has been a foundational debate in Canada: how and with whom can we trade, and as freely as possible. It has never been about how the government can trade with another government, but how people can trade. People create corporations and enterprises. They are entrepreneurial. They look for the best deals, and it is not just about price. It is about the product people want. It is about obtaining the type of product and not looking at only the price, but the quality, its origins, whatever country it comes from, and being able to obtain it freely in a country without government interference telling them, through a tariff or regulation, or imposition of a ban, they cannot obtain it.

In a previous decade, it was a Conservative government that negotiated many free trade agreements, with 46 different countries, which brought the total up to 51 in Canada. That was 4.6 agreements per year.

Sometimes when I speak with students, especially students of history, I like comparing Canada to the Hanseatic League. It is in ancient Europe. We are about to embark on a great free trade agreement with Europe, including many of the countries whose cities were formerly with the Hanseatic League of ancient Europe. Canada is on the cusp of achieving a vast free trade empire, of which Prime Minister Harper used to speak. We have this great opportunity. Free trade will reshape our country and Europe as well. It is that combination of sharing a common history and common culture for many of us. It is an opportunity to shape the future for the next 20 to 50 years. It is not just for ourselves. It is also for our children and grandchildren, who will have opportunities that we did not have when we were much younger.

Other agreements have gone onto the wayside, like the TPP. It is my great hope the government will take up the TPP negotiations again and ensure we sign it with the partners that are still willing to go ahead with it. It is a great loss for the United States not to be moving ahead with the TPP at this time. I still have great hopes that Congress will change its mind and actually move on this. Again, it puts Canada right in the middle between CETA and the TPP and our free trade agreement with the United States.

We have an amazing opportunity to become the hub country through which goods can move, corporations can come and not just create good paying middle-class jobs, but also reshape our country and provide new opportunities and new ways of doing business, and creating wealth for the government to tax and pay for the public services Canadians have come to expect.

While TPP is a great loss for the United States, CETA is a great loss for the United Kingdom. A great many politicians in Europe and the United Kingdom have said this will be a loss for the United Kingdom, but they still look forward to negotiating free trade agreements both in Continental Europe and Canada, and finding opportunities to increase trade and to make it possible.

I like to quote from Daniel Hannan, a politician. Sometimes I also look at his videos and his speeches. He is now a former member of the European parliament, and was one of the big promoters of Brexit. He said that the union between the United Kingdom and the European Union was not some great utopia of free trade due to the regulations that were imposed on them. He said that the goal of a great many politicians in the United Kingdom still was to achieve free trade with Europe, Canada and with as many countries as possible to give this great opportunity for their citizens to trade freely with others. It is still good to aim high as much as possible. I am glad the government is pushing forward the legislation to implement the treaty and then to move on from there to other negotiations, to other perspective countries and regions with which we could achieve some type of free trade agreement and provide opportunities for Canadians to trade.

On January 24, The European Union trade committee voted 25 to 15 with one abstention. The rapporteur for the CETA said that this was a strong response to growing protectionism and that trade would enable them to continue to bring wealth to both shores of this trans-Atlantic friendship. That is a great way of looking at it. It is not just about the business component. It is also about this great friendship we have had, which predates NATO and the British and French influence on this continent. It is a long-standing relationship that America in the very broad sense, America, Canada, Mexico, has been able to enjoy with Europe. We have a shared history. Our histories and politics are intertwined. We participate in international bodies together. Although we can disagree, and sometimes very profoundly, we maintain that friendship, and that agreement does not turn into rancour, warring among each other anymore, thankfully. Now we have an opportunity, through free trade, to mutually reach an agreement between ourselves that will be beneficial for our citizens and our residents.

Both Canada and the European Union recognize in the deal the right to regulate domestic rights, and both will remain intact. That is found in section 7(d) of the legislation. This should allay the concerns that multinationals will somehow gain more influence and be able to pit one government against another, or pit a regulation in order to try to indicate that it is unnecessarily targeting them in some way. Section 7(d) tries to allay some of the fears of some people who no longer support free trade, the great pull internationally toward more protectionism that we saw 100 years ago. We need to push against that. It is a good sign from the Liberal government that it is moving ahead with the European free trade agreement. It says that we are open for trade and business. We want to find ways to trade more freely with others. We want to reach an agreement to reduce tariffs, to align our regulations to give those opportunities to Canadians to trade freely with them.

CETA will not remove barriers on four specific areas: public services, audiovisual, transport services, and a few agricultural products, including dairy, poultry, and eggs. The European Union expects the trade between its bloc and our country to rise by 20% when the agreement is fully implemented.

If we look at some of the numbers from 2015, according to the European Union, if we count just the imports from Canada, they totalled just about $40 billion. If we look at the exports to Canada, it was $49.5 billion. This is just a rough conversion from the euro.

We could also look at the Observatory of Economic Complexity, which is a website I highly recommend to people interested not only in numbers but to have them visually explained, to visually show what the numbers actually mean in real trade and to convey the numbers in a way that is catchy and attractive to the eye. For Canada, if we have a rough comparator, it means in value.

We exported $45.2 billion in cars in 2014. If we compare that to the exports we got from Europe, it was $49.5 billion. Therefore, we can see the opportunity we have. The car industry in Canada is a sector of the economy. It is very big in Ontario and not so very big in Alberta, but it is an opportunity if we just compare these two numbers. The top imports to Canada were vehicle parts, $20.4 billion, which is about twice as much as our EU trade; refined petroleum was $17.9 billion; and delivery trucks were $12.7 billion. Again, we expected the boost to Canadian trade would be somewhere in the area of $12 billion. Therefore, that boost alone would be like doubling the delivery trucks we import.

Again, it would be like almost doubling the vehicle parts sector of our economy. It is a huge opportunity, a chance for Canadians and Canadian companies to find ways to meet the needs and wants of people overseas and, likewise, for those people in other countries, such as the European Union, to find ways to meet the needs of Canadians without having the government necessarily interfere in that free exchange of goods and services.

The 751-seat European Parliament will be holding a vote on February 15. Therefore, it is very timely to be having this debate and passing the bill. It would be a good signal to send to the European Parliament that we are onside and that we want to proceed as quickly as possible to pass this bill in both the House and the Senate so Canadians can start to do the legwork needed on the ground to prepare themselves to trade with our partners in Europe. I am sure European companies and European residents are getting ready to trade with Canadians.

Sending the message that we still believe in free trade is more important today than it has ever been before. As I mentioned before, there is a great rise in protectionism across the globe. A great many people have seen, for the past 30 years potentially, in their own individual cases the lack of opportunity. They have not been able to obtain the jobs they wanted. The free trade in their countries perhaps was not as successful as they had hoped, or the sector of the economy they were in, perhaps for extended periods of time, suffered from an agreement where someone else with a comparative advantage was able to trade at a lower price or for different quality goods.

Again, we are always trying to find opportunities to help Canadians retrain and find new sectors of their economy to go into, to find entrepreneurial routes to create wealth. Although there are those situations, we have to support this renewal through this agreement, this renewal of our faith in free trade that it is good for Canadians and that it has been part of our history. We can broaden this transatlantic friendship and with that, protectionist sentiment notwithstanding, we will make this work. It will not be perfect. Every sector of the economy may not profit as equally as another, but we will find opportunities to make it work. Where it does not work, we can always make an agreement with our European partners to get it done.

I will go back to my example of the Hanseatic League. That league was based on trade in Europe, especially around the Baltic Sea. It dominated trade for almost 400 years. Yet Hansa societies were working to remove restrictions on trade, especially regulatory restrictions on trade. Permitting and restrictions were a big deal in those countries, in those cities. It was very difficult at the time to freely trade among all regions there. The Hanseatic League, basically, made it possible to trade freely almost among themselves, to provide and ship goods to other areas that needed them.

The opportunities that the league found profoundly reshaped the Baltic states and cities. We can still see it today in the city from which I come. I was born in Danzig, Gdansk in Polish. After 1466, it became the leading grain port and made Poland the dominant exporter of grain through the association it had with the league. I lived in that city for four and a half before my family came here in 1985. It is marked by that profound association it had with the Hanseatic League. The entire port areas are either shipyards or old grain ports. The most historic well-known heritage buildings are old Hansa society buildings. They are all grain storage facilities. Those are the things people mostly recognize.

Even though there was such awful destruction in World War I and World War II and during the many riots and uprisings in Poland during the 1800s during the partitions, those buildings still stand today. They stand as a kind of reminder to generations that have come afterward of the opportunities trade has given cities like Danzig and cities like Hamburg, which greatly profited from the ability to associate with others freely and to trade freely with them.

I am convinced that CETA will reshape Europe and Canada for decades to come in a positive way, a better way. We will find opportunities to trade and will find, perhaps, wants and needs that we did not know existed in Europe. Likewise, they will do it here. We will grow that relationship we have with them, both in trade imports and exports but also in the friendship we enjoy. We will come to a better understanding of what our countries require or do not require. People perhaps will be able to move across to other areas of the world, again seeking opportunities, chances to create wealth for themselves and for their families to live, work, and play as they wish.

The freedom to associate has to also mean the freedom to trade. “Free trade, one of the greatest blessings which government can confer on its people, is in...every country unpopular”. Perhaps members think that was said in 2017, but it was not. It was actually said in 1824, by Thomas Babington Macaulay, the first Baron Macaulay, a British historian and politician, a Whig, no less. At the time, he was looking at continental Europe and saying that he saw a great rise in protectionism and a great rise in people no longer seeing the benefits of free trade and the opportunities they received from engaging in trade with others.

Again, it is the great paradox of our time that those who have gained the most from the liberalization of trade, especially since 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union, no longer believe in its ability to reduce extreme poverty. They no longer believe in its ability to reduce extreme deprivation in housing and energy. They no longer believe that it is as effective. We know that all the stats prove it. We can see with our eyes, when we travel to certain areas, that trade has benefited immensely countries in Asia, in Africa, and in Latin America. Things are better today than they were 100 years ago or 50 years ago. Since 1989, countries like Singapore, South Korea, and Poland have immensely benefited, and their middle class has benefited, from the ability to trade freely with others, and so have we.

The trade relationship we have with the United States is the one we know best. It is the one sometimes we take for granted as well. We do not do enough to nurture the relationship we have with our American friends to the south. Sometimes we take it for granted, and we should not, because just as Baron Macaulay said in 1824, the rise of protectionism can always return. We are seeing that today.

What we have to be doing with an agreement like this is passing it as quickly as possible through this House, with judicious debate here and in the Senate. We have to give ourselves the opportunity to at least move it along further so that when the European Parliament, on February 15, has its vote, it will see that Canada is ready to take advantage of this agreement we have negotiated in good faith with the European Union and that we want to follow through on it and deepen the relationship we have had.

The great reductions in poverty and deprivation we have experienced and seen with our own eyes over the past 60 years were not the result of status or socialist command economies. They did not lift more than a billion people out of poverty. It was free trade, free-market economies that succeeded.

Why are people opposed to it today? I will maybe leave off with a quote from Daniel Hannan. He mentions two things that are the problem between protectionism and free trade and the pull between the two: “dispersed gains, concentrated losses”.

We can see that in industries that are protected, that enjoy some type of grant from the government, a monopoly or oligopoly system, such as in sugar and tires. It goes on and on.

On one side, the gains of free trade are dispersed across the population, and it is hard to say, “This is why I have gained over the past 20 years and have been able to obtain a job that feeds my family and gives me the sense of hope and opportunity I have always looked for”. On the other side, concentrated losses, those who lose from it can sometimes lose very profoundly.

My family came to Canada not just because they were fleeing political persecution but because of the opportunities Canada provided. The free trade agreement is deeply embedded in that, and I urge the House to pass this bill as soon as possible.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I share with my colleague a passion for trade and the importance of understanding that we are a trading nation, and I appreciate his global perspective.

When we look at what is happening across the globe right now, certainly there are implications for CETA. When we look at what has happened in the U.K., with Brexit, it is something we have to address. It is not something we can simply gloss over. If we sign CETA, we now have an unknown in the U.K., and 42% of Canadian exports are to the U.K. The Canadian concessions in CETA were based on the premise that the U.K. would be in the agreement. However, after Brexit, the Liberal government failed to re-evaluate the net benefit of CETA without the U.K. If the U.K. triggers its exit from EU, and also leaves CETA, is the member comfortable with the concessions Canada has made in CETA, given that the U.K. represents nearly half of Canada's exports to the EU?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to be respectful in my response, because I will disagree in principle.

I think the government has made the right move to push ahead with this agreement, because eventually there will be a Brexit. It is not perhaps; it is definitely when. Theresa May, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has been very clear that there will be an exit. However, the U.K. will be signing some type of agreement with continental Europe. It will be the best position for Canada to be in to already have an agreement ready to go with continental Europe and from there to negotiate an agreement with the United Kingdom. I do not see a reason not to move ahead with it, when we know that our partners in the United Kingdom want to negotiate an agreement with us, which will be to the advantage of Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, trade is critically important to Canada. We are a trading nation. Many of the jobs we have today are directly linked, and many thousands more are indirectly linked, to it. As the minister indicated a little while ago, CETA is the gold standard. This is no doubt something that will assist Canada's middle class, and by helping Canada's middle class grow, we are helping the economy. That is good news for Canada.

Does the member recognize that one bonus is that the European Union is looking to Canada to continue to demonstrate leadership, especially on the trade file? We have a wonderful opportunity to be the linchpin between the U.S. and Europe. By using this agreement, there could be some additional benefit for Canada to move forward in opening new markets for our many manufacturers, services, and so forth.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think the member is right in some part. CETA offers an opportunity for our manufacturers and Canadians to do business more easily in Europe. It is one piece of the puzzle in the long term. I say that because the previous Conservative government had started exploratory discussions on launching free trade negotiations with other countries. I think it is important to remember that agreements are being signed bilaterally and multilaterally by many other countries. Canada can place itself in the best possible position if we look at CETA as one part of the puzzle. As we negotiate with others, we can say, “We have access to the European Union. How about you negotiate an agreement with us and you can use us as a flowthrough for logistics or transportation?” Those exploratory discussions the previous government had were with Thailand, the Philippines, and Mercosur, including Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. It is an opportunity, and we need to take advantage of it.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, earlier the Minister of International Trade referred to this as the gold standard of trade deals. However, I would like to draw the attention of all hon. members of this House to the fact that all is not well within the European Union. There is a German constitutional challenge against CETA that has garnered 125,000 signatures. There is a recently launched referendum campaign in the Netherlands that has collected over 200,000 signatures. We also know that each individual country of the EU must ratify this agreement.

To pass off these concerns as simple protectionism is too simplistic. There are some very legitimate concerns that people in the European Union share with us here in the NDP. Among those is the investor court system and the uncertainty that surrounds this institution.

My constituents' big concern about any trade deal is that Canada must maintain sovereignty over its ability to formulate policy for the good of Canadians. Would the member not agree that maintaining the ability of all levels of government to pass good laws for Canadians and for Canada is of paramount importance? Would he not agree that the ability of our federal courts to interpret and pass judgment on those laws is also of paramount importance?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I already addressed many of the member's concerns in my speech. I would just like to mention, again, bringing it back to subclause 7(d) of this agreement, that Canada will still be able to regulate different areas that are domestic areas.

I think we need to look beyond this just for a moment and look at the principle. I often hear New Democrats talking about being globalists and looking globally. They seem to be globalists until it comes to free trade, and then they are not globalists anymore.

When I look at this opportunity we have, we just cannot pass it up. It forms a building block of what we are trying to create, where Canada will be right in the middle, taking advantage of the opportunities offered to it. Those opportunities will be taken by Canadians as they see where they can grow their companies, create wealth, and exchange and trade with others.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to touch on a little of what the minister said earlier, that exports are 30% of our GDP. Exports consist of $16 billion in services to Europe alone.

The hon. member mentioned that it came down to cities and how cities could benefit. He mentioned eastern Europe. Could he talk about a city that has benefited from these trade deals?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, I was born in the city called Danzig, which benefited greatly from the grain trade almost 600 years ago. It really reshaped the city.

I could talk about the city that I call home and that I am proud to represent. The part of the city I am in is called Calgary Shepard. Calgary has become a regional logistics hub. Walmart and Canadian Tire have major centres for distribution to all of western Canada and into the northern United States. It has profoundly affected the shape of the city, how the city has grown over time, and where companies choose to cluster. It has also been deeply impacted by the free trade they enjoy with other companies. It is the proximity and the opportunity that really impact how a city grows and sometimes the people who choose to live there and the professions they practise. We are known for oil and gas, but Calgary, especially, is also known as being a logistics hub.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, we heard from the minister earlier about how all these trade agreements are about the people of Canada. I just want to ask the member how significant increases in the price of prescription drugs for Canadians would benefit the people of Canada through CETA.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member when he predicts that the price of medicine will automatically go up and that it has to go up.

Through free trade, we will find opportunities to obtain the goods we want, including medicine and pharmaceuticals. It is an opportunity.

We should not only see the barriers. That is all I hear, the pessimism on that side. That feeds the image and the protectionism Baron Macaulay talked about in 1824. That protectionist feeling returns time after time, and it is usually hidden behind talk of fair trade.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-30 at third reading today. As we know, Bill C-30 is implementing legislation for the Canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement. This debate is the last one we will have before the legislation is passed by this House and moves on to the Senate.

The Canada-EU relationship is extremely important, and perhaps it has grown in importance since Canada's relationship with the U.S. faces new challenges.

The New Democratic Party believes Canada should absolutely be deepening trade relations with the European Union. After all, our countries share deep social and cultural ties, and the EU is already our second-largest trading partner. This trading relationship is extremely important. In fact, as I have said before, it is too important to get wrong.

I would like to begin my speech by highlighting some of the testimony received by the Standing Committee on International Trade. After, I would like to revisit some of the New Democratic Party's outstanding concerns with CETA, and the challenges with this agreement, moving forward.

While the trade committee had only four meetings to hear from outside witnesses on CETA, we heard some very good presentations. I wish we could have had more meetings and more witnesses, as I felt they made very valuable contributions.

One of the challenges that is often overlooked in trade discussions is how the government will actually help micro, small, and medium-sized businesses access potential new markets. Only about 10% of Canadian SMEs do business outside of our borders.

It is the job of the Minister of International Trade to develop, and implement a new strategy to support Canadian businesses exporting to international markets. This theme was often raised at the trade committee, as witnesses discussed how the government could support Canadian exporting businesses.

The Canadian Cattlemen's Association testified that it was very supportive of CETA. However, it also highlighted critical issues around the conversion of potential markets into real trade. Canadian meat producers are essentially shut out of the European market, so they welcome the access that CETA may grant them. However, I will point out that for Canadian beef exports, the increased quota would be phased in over six years. On the other hand, EU exporters would have tariff-free, quota-free access to Canada on day one.

The Cattlemen's Association pointed out significant differences between Canada and EU food safety regulations. Its support for Bill C-30 and CETA implementation is contingent on three conditions: first, it wants a commitment from the government to develop and fully fund a comprehensive strategy to eliminate non-tariff barriers to Canadian beef; second, it expects EU beef imports would comply with Canadian food safety requirements; and third, it wants to see government investment in beef processing and beef producer operations to help them comply with the complexities of the EU market.

As we can see, there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that Canadian exporters can access potential new EU markets.

The committee also heard from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which affirmed that trade agreements are just a starting point. Canada needs a vigorous trade strategy to help smaller businesses take advantage of new opportunities.

I would like to point out some comments provided to the committee by the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses which, as we know, represents over 100,000 Canadian SMEs. Ms. Corinne Pohlmann of CFIB said:

Almost two-thirds of our members in a very recent survey are supportive of international trade agreements. However, nearly one in five small business owners felt they didn't have enough information to answer this question, suggesting that perhaps more needs to be done to inform them about the opportunities trade agreements can bring to their business.

She also pointed out that supply-managed producers have strong concerns and should be compensated for losses they would incur on CETA. According to the CFIB, smaller businesses want more consistency, fewer regulations, standards that are simple to comply with, simpler border processes, less paperwork, and lower costs. These are all principles that the NDP agrees with resoundingly.

This is exactly the kind of trade that we support. It is a shame that CETA includes so much else that we simply cannot support, like extraordinary legal rights for foreign companies to challenge our domestic environmental laws, and IP rules that favour name brand pharmaceutical companies that would drive up the cost of medication for Canadians.

These are the elements of comprehensive agreements like CETA and TPP that we simply cannot support. These elements are not in the best interests of Canadians. Canadians need elected representatives who are willing to stand up and challenge these harmful ideas.

CETA will also hurt Canada's dairy sector, and the so-called investment package offered to dairy farmers falls far short of compensating them for their losses. I would like to read a quote from Yves Leduc of the Dairy Farmers of Canada who appeared before the trade committee:

In regard to the government's announcement of a transition assistance package for CETA on November 10, DFC was pleased to see that the government decided to invest $250 million in dairy farms as well as $100 million in funding to help spur investment into updating Canada's dairy processing infrastructure...However, it only partially addresses the damage that will be caused by CETA. For dairy farmers, CETA will result in an expropriation of up to 2% of Canadian milk production, representing 17,700 tonnes of cheese that will no longer be produced in Canada. This is equivalent to the production of the province of Nova Scotia alone. It will cost Canadian dairy farmers up to $116 million in perpetual lost revenues.

Let us take a look at the math here. Canadian dairy farmers will perpetually lose $115 million-a-year, while the Liberals' so-called transition plan will provide $50 million-a-year for only five years. This simply will not compensate dairy farmers for the losses they will incur under CETA, and some farmers will never see a penny of this money.

The government says that it supports supply management, but when it comes time to act, it turns its back on our dairy farmers. There is no action on diafiltered milk, and now the government has sent Brian Mulroney over to the U.S. on Canada's behalf, who just last week openly called for the elimination of supply management.

This is the person the Liberals have sent to the U.S. to supposedly defend Canadian trade interests. I hope the Minister of Agriculture is urging the Prime Minister to send Mr. Mulroney back to Canada, because Mr. Mulroney cannot claim to be fighting for Canada while opining that supply management has got to go.

Supply management is the backbone of our dairy industry, and it provides Canadian farmers with reliable incomes. It keeps prices stable, requires no government assistance, and supplies Canada with healthy, local milk. However, supply management has been eroded under TPP and CETA. It is time the government makes good on its word, and starts standing up for Canadian dairy farmers.

On CETA, the Liberals have completely ignored the issue of compensating Newfoundland and Labrador, which is expected to give up its minimum processing requirements under CETA. These rules are very important to Newfoundland and Labrador. They require that fish caught in the province must also be processed there. This keeps jobs in the local rural economy.

In 2013, a $400-million fisheries fund was set up, with Ottawa contributing $280 million and Newfoundland and Labrador contributing $120 million. Where is the money now? Why has the Liberal government backed away from this pledge? For Heaven's sake, why is every Liberal MP from Newfoundland and Labrador not rising to their feet and raising these concerns?

I would like to read a quote:

The abolition of minimum processing requirements is clearly of great concern to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and your government’s support of the CETA was earned, in part, by a promise from the Government of Canada to help the industry adjust to the new reality. That promise should be honoured.

Do members know who said that? It was the Right Hon. Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, in a letter to the former Prime Minister.

I agree, Mr. Prime Minister, the promise should be honoured, but will the government commit today to the promised compensation, or is this just another Liberal broken promise?

There is another Canadian industry that stands to be severely impacted by CETA, and that is our maritime industry, which supports 250,000 direct and indirect jobs. Under CETA, foreign-owned vessels will be permitted to transport goods between Canadian ports. Opening up cabotage to foreign vessels is a first in Canada, and seafarers are rightly concerned that this will lead to Canadian job losses. These European vessels will be allowed to hire non-Canadian workers.

I would like to draw to the attention of my colleagues the issue of flags of convenience, which is a practice whereby a merchant ship is registered in a country other than that of the ship's owners. Owners do this because it gives them many advantages: minimal regulation, cheap registration fees, lower or no taxes, and freedom to employ cheap labour from around the world. For workers, this means low wages, as low as $2 an hour, as well as poor onboard conditions, inadequate food, clean drinking water, and very poor working conditions.

I hope my hon. colleagues can appreciate the ramifications this may have on Canada's maritime industry. The Canadian Maritime and Supply Chain Coalition, which includes the Seafarers' International Union of Canada and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, among others, is very concerned about CETA. It estimates it could result in the immediate loss of 3,000 Canadian seafarers' jobs from the east coast, to the Great Lakes, to the west coast.

I would like to highlight CETA's impact on one additional Canadian industry. It is an industry that is very important in my riding of Essex. I know it is important in many of my colleagues' ridings as well, including those with ridings in the Niagara region and British Columbia. Of course, I am speaking about Canada's wine sector.

Currently, the EU exports 180 million litres of wine to Canada, but Canada only exports 123,000 litres to the EU. Under CETA, this trade imbalance will be exacerbated.

The Canadian Vintners Association is asking for federal support to help the Canadian wine sector adjust and prepare for the implementation of CETA. I am hopeful the government has considered the implications of CETA on our wine industry, and that it will offer support to help them adapt.

With any trade agreement, there are trade-offs and concessions to be made. Canada made some significant concessions on the assumption that the U.K. would be part of the agreement. We now know it likely will not.

If CETA moves forward, some sectors will also have to make significant adjustments. I urge the government to be a strong partner to affected Canadian industries, and assist them as needed with transition support and compensation where required.

I have been very disappointed in the Liberals' apparent unwillingness to listen to Canadian concerns with CETA. As I mentioned, we have had a very limited committee study of this legislation, and even sectors that support the agreement had specific conditions and concerns regarding implementation.

This agreement has no doubt had a rocky path, and it is still very unclear whether the EU will ever fully implement it. If the EU parliament ratifies CETA, it still has to be ratified by each individual member state and in some cases, regional parliaments must ratify too.

Last month, the EU trade committee voted 25-15 to endorse the deal. However, this past December, the EU committee for employment and social affairs voted 27-24 to reject the deal. It is clear that there is still a lot of opposition, both in Canada and in the EU, to CETA. The Liberals have been trying to say all progressives in the EU support the agreement, but that is simply not the case.

In addition to political opposition, there is widespread public opposition. Last year, there were several protests with over 100,000 people in attendance at each. A German constitutional challenge against CETA garnered 125,000 signatures, and a recently launched referendum campaign in the Netherlands has already collected over 200,000 signatures.

I do not believe this opposition can be pegged on a rising tide of protectionism. There are very concrete reasons why people are opposed to CETA. Angella MacEwen, senior economist with the Canadian Labour Congress, said to the trade committee:

The gains of these trade deals are never as big as they are projected to be, and the gains for CETA are small. They are among the error bars for what our economic growth is projected to be anyway.

Of the few studies that have been done on CETA, most are based on unrealistic assumptions, such as full employment, lack of capital mobility, and equal sharing of projected income gains. Even with these assumptions, GDP gains from CETA are not projected to be beyond 0.76%. I would also like to point out that after trade agreements are implemented, there is really no way of measuring whether they create any new jobs, or how their benefits are distributed.

Studies based on a different set of assumptions have shown CETA will increase inequality, and could lead to 204,000 job losses in the EU and 23,000 job losses in Canada.

At the end of the day, I do not see a commitment from the government to mitigating these negative impacts. In fact, Liberals refuse to even speak about them whether here in the House or at the committee level. I urge the government to listen to these very real concerns around CETA.

The Liberals have spent over a year consulting on the TPP and still cannot make up their minds, but on CETA, the other Conservative-negotiated trade deal, they essentially did no consultations. They slapped a gold star on it, called it progressive, and are pushing it through Parliament. I see no difference between the trade policies of the previous Conservative government and those of the current Liberal government. With the change in the U.S. administration, Canadians are looking to this government to stand up and fight for Canadian interests. It is time the Liberals showed us what a progressive trade agenda actually looks like.

Today, The Globe and Mail reported that a new poll shows Canadians expect our Prime Minister to “stand up to the President’s aggressive America-first strategy even if it leads to a trade war with Canada’s biggest trading partner”. For New Democrats, standing up to the President means standing up for Canadian jobs. Canada must stand firm on protecting its dairy industry, softwood lumber industry, and other trade-dependent industries. If the United States wants to reopen NAFTA, there is also an opportunity for us to push for more stringent labour and environmental standards and to get rid of regressive provisions like investor-state arbitration rules similar to those we see in CETA and the TPP.

I would like to conclude my remarks today by adding a word of caution. There has been a lot of criticism of the previous Conservative government for negotiating trade deals in secret. They did that with the TPP and they did that with CETA. There is a better balance to be struck between protecting confidential negotiating details and informing Canadians of what is on the table.

The Liberals promised Canadians more openness and transparency, but when it comes to trade, I see them slipping into the Conservatives' patterns. There has been no peep from them on the trade in services agreement, nor have they given Canadians any clarity about what will be on the table in the NAFTA renegotiations.

I urge the government to be up front with Canadians. They want greater transparency and meaningful, honest discussion with Canadians on the potential impacts of any trade deal.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the government has actually been very straightforward with Canadians on this. I am sure the member is quite familiar with the fact that, prior to the election, our leader indicated that Liberals are supportive of CETA. In fact, when we talk about trade agreements, the very progressive Liberal Party has looked at how Canada benefits when we have trade agreements. We have been consistent over the years, going all the way back to the Auto Pact days.

When it came to the Auto Pact, of course, New Democrats opposed it, like they oppose CETA today, but there are some strange anomalies. For example, they supported the agreement with Jordan. They voted for the trade agreement with Ukraine, and I applaud them on that.

Could the member opposite explain to the House what was in the Jordan trade agreement that New Democrats voted in favour of, but will now vote against what the vast majority of individuals throughout Europe and Canada say is a good, solid agreement for both Canada and Europe and that there will be significant gains for all Canadians?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the member had listened to my speech he would have heard me say that Canadians have serious concerns with this trade agreement. What we saw from the Liberal government around CETA was a far-reaching campaign into Europe to ensure that this deal would be signed at any cost against major opposition in Europe, which still exists today. It is quite disheartening that members of the House refuse to acknowledge that this deal is far from being done in Europe. There is major opposition to it. A referendum is being called. There is the side agreement, the declaration that exists to the side.

To address the member's question, the NDP supports deals when they are progressive, when they line up with our progressive values, when they line up with what Canadians ask us to do. If we in the House do not listen to Canadians, then we will never stop the cynicism that is happening around trade deals, and we will never be able to sign more progressive trade deals if we do not have an eye toward that.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will start by thanking the member for Essex for that amazing critique of the trade deal. She has raised a number of concerns that are widespread, in my riding as well, one being the impact of this deal on prescription drugs.

I also want to talk about what people generally call supply management, which I have been hoping to get people to think of as food security. Would the member agree with me that one of the possible impacts of this trade agreement would be the undermining of Canadian production, which makes sure that we have Canadian producers producing the food we need, and also makes sure that we have producers who produce the high standards of food that Canadians have learned to expect in our market?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with the member that when we are looking at opening up our supply-managed sectors, it is a question of food safety and food sovereignty within our own country. It is incredibly important to us that we have a strong supply-managed sector, and lately, trade deals have been attacking Canada's supply-managed sector. We see this in both the TPP and CETA. The compensation package that came forward under the government falls far short. We will see great losses across the provinces. Every province will be affected, because we have a dairy industry that spans our country. Certain provinces like Quebec and Ontario will see great losses. Many dairy producers and dairy farms in the member's province including on Vancouver Island have been there for generations. It is important that we protect our food safety and also protect family farms.

It would be great to see a commitment from the government, particularly under NAFTA, that it would not allow supply management to enter into the renegotiations of that trade deal.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the NDP has not been consistent on the trade file. Let me give a couple of examples. When those members were the official opposition, they supported the agreement with Jordan, and I understand to a certain degree they supported the Korean deal.

The member said that her party consults with Canadians and does its homework, and so forth, yet it opposed the TPP even before any details were released on it. At least we committed to look into it before we took a position, something which we continue to do.

Why has the NDP chosen to oppose this particular agreement given the benefits to Canada's middle class and those who are aspiring to be a part of it? It seems to me that those members have lost touch with reality in terms of the benefits of trade given the importance of international trade to every Canadian. No matter what region of the country, we all benefit from trade. We are a trading nation. Why has the NDP lost touch with this issue saying this particular agreement is not going to advance that whole trade agenda?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it quite curious that the member has asked what parts of this deal we have a concern with when I just gave a 20-minute speech on exactly those pieces. If he had read the amendments that I brought forward, he would have seen a wide representation of the things that we have concerns about, that Canadians have concerns about. I would encourage the member to read the entire agreement and read the amendments that were brought forward by the NDP, which he voted against yesterday.

I will take no lessons from the Liberals on consistency. When we look at trade and the number of meetings and the amount of attention and the cross-country tour that we took with respect to the TPP and compare that to CETA, no consistency exists from the Liberal side of the House. Four hundred witnesses came forward on the TPP but no decision is being made on TPP. On CETA, I had to fight at committee to have more meetings. We heard from a handful of witnesses. Witnesses from the maritime sector were unable to appear. If the member wants to talk about consistency, we opened up the trade committee to the public with respect to the TPP. Sixty-five thousand Canadians wrote about the TPP. The Liberals refused to allow the same process to take place on CETA. I will take no lessons from the member on consistency.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the member for Essex for the incredible work that she has done on this file. As one of the members of the class of 2015, to be handed this portfolio with all of these trade deals, she really has done an exemplary job.

I, too, will take no lessons on consistency from the Liberals, especially in light of their fundamentally broken promise on electoral reform. I think Canadians are beginning to see that their words really have no weight in this House.

I want to ask my colleague about the fact that the government broke its own policy on tabling treaties in Parliament. As we all know, this was signed on October 30, and the implementing legislation was brought forward on October 31. It violated the fact that the memorandum outlining key components of this treaty must be tabled, and Parliament must have 21 sitting days to consider these weighty implementation bills and so on.

This Parliament is being asked to sign a blank cheque when there is still so much uncertainty surrounding this deal. I would like to hear the member's further comments on that rushed, botched, and ultimately failed process that the government failed to live up to.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, again, the member's question speaks to the Liberals' inconsistency. This also speaks to the fact that average Canadians feel entirely left out of trade agreements. They do not feel that trade agreements have benefited them in their everyday lives.

When we look at this particular deal, we certainly see that if we had had information ahead of time, if this had been tabled in the appropriate manner and not had an exception made after the fact, then all of us as parliamentarians would have been able to fully and properly look at this massive trade deal, the largest trade deal that we are signing since NAFTA.

It is incredibly important, and it is incumbent upon all of us in this House to ensure that we understand what we are signing onto and the implications that it will have on every Canadian in terms of the cost of medication, the seafarer jobs that will be lost, the sectors that will never be able to see the benefit because of non-tariff barriers that have not been addressed, and the investor-state provision which has been changed into a court system that still has no definition, that is giving sweeping powers to the minister to appoint people.

There are grave concerns that Canadians have, and I hope that all parliamentarians will address these issues at some point in this House.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Joliette.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak here today on this important piece of legislation. It is a privilege to speak in support of the passage of Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures.

I congratulate the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the minister of the previous government who was involved, as well as the team of negotiators for their diligent and successful work in bringing this international trade agreement to the final steps required for implementation.

There are many reasons to support freer trade. It ensures that consumers, businesses, and government have access to a broader assortment of goods and services. It enhances competition and makes available better quality products at lower prices. In a broader policy context, it provides leadership, with an inclusive, progressive approach to global trade and the development of more sophisticated, effective, and valuable trade agreements. However, most of all, trade leads to economic growth, and economic growth means more jobs, and more jobs means greater opportunities for the middle class and those working hard to join it.

In an uncertain global trading environment, Canada's economy will thrive only if we pursue a market diversification strategy. That strategy requires that we should always be exploring new markets while at the same time improving sales performance in as broad a set of our existing markets as possible. The European Union is the world's second-largest market. To illustrate the scale, 500 million Europeans buy more from the rest of the world every year than everything that Canada produces in a year.

When trying to improve sales, the first place to look is whether there is room for improvement with the customers we already have, like Europe, where we have been doing business for 200 years. Europe is already one of Canada's best customers. The European Union is Canada's second-largest trading partner, after the United States. In 2015, Canada's merchandise exports to the EU totalled $38 billion.

I represent the electoral district of Kitchener South—Hespeler, in southwestern Ontario. To bring the issue a little closer to home, in 2015 Ontario's merchandise exports to the EU totalled $19.7 billion, more than half of all of Canada's exports to the EU. Ontario and Kitchener South—Hespeler stand to benefit from increased access to the European market.

Once CETA is implemented, Canada will be strategically positioned to become one of a few developed countries with preferential access to the world's two largest markets, which are the European Union and the United States.

I want to bring this a little closer to home. In my riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler, the implementation of CETA stands to benefit advanced manufacturing, which is a big economic driver there. It employs many people with well-paying jobs in my riding.

We are able to achieve that $38-billion level of sales to the EU despite the fact that 75% of what we sell to the EU is currently subject to tariffs and taxes, which the EU collects on Canadian goods at the border, adding to the cost of our goods for Europeans, making our merchandise less price competitive. CETA would make Canadian goods more competitive and give our goods an edge over goods from countries that do not have preferential access to the European Union markets.

On the first day that CETA enters into force, 98% of EU tariff lines on Canadian goods will be duty free, including the most significant Ontario exports: metals and mineral products, manufactured goods, chemicals and plastics. Within seven years that duty-free percentage will rise by one more per cent to 99%. Virtually all manufactured goods Canada exports to Europe will be duty free.

Similarly, for agricultural and agrifood products, 94% of EU tariff lines would become duty free immediately, rising to 95% within seven years.

The European Union is also the world's largest importer of services. Under CETA, Canada's service providers would benefit from the greatest access the EU has ever provided in an agreement. This is particularly important for the Ontario economy, in which services accounted for 77% of the province's total GDP and employed more than 4.9 million Ontarians in 2015. Once Canadian goods or services have been imported into the EU, CETA provides that they must be treated no less favourably than the locally produced products. For example, they cannot be subject to higher taxes, stricter product regulation, or restrictions on sale than for a similar domestic good.

At the end of 2015, Europe was a venue for 21% of foreign direct investment by the Canadian companies, totalling $210 billion; and $242 billion of foreign direct investment in Canada had been made by European companies, representing 31% of all foreign direct investment in Canada.

CETA would provide investors in both Canada and Europe with greater protection while respecting governments' ability to enact legislation and to regulate in accordance with the public interest, such as environmental protection or people's health and safety.

Governments are some of the most substantial purchasers of goods and services. The annual procurement spending by European governments is estimated to be in the area of $3.3 trillion. CETA would provide Canadian firms with the opportunity to bid on contracts to supply their goods and services to European governments at all levels.

Under CETA, skilled Canadian professionals and business people would find it easier to work on a temporary basis in the EU and to move across borders as required; for example to establish branch offices and to provide services related to goods sold.

I stand here today, enthusiastic about the increased trade agreement with CETA. Trade means more growth. Growth means more jobs. More jobs mean greater opportunity for those trying to enter the middle class. CETA would be good for my constituents in Kitchener South—Hespeler, creating jobs and opportunities, it would be good for Ontario, and it would be good for all Canadians.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my neighbour from Kitchener South—Hespeler for acknowledging the great work of the member for Abbotsford, who did the lion's share of the negotiations on this committee, and that has been acknowledged by his minister so I thank them for that.

My colleague mentioned the benefit to advanced manufacturing in Kitchener South—Hespeler, and indeed all of southwestern Ontario and I could not agree more, but one sector that the trade agreement would impact greatly is the agricultural sector. We have beef producers, pork producers, and grain and oilseed producers who are ecstatic that this trade agreement has been signed. It would benefit them greatly.

When we were in government, our government made a commitment to the supply-managed sectors of dairy and poultry and also to the fishing industry for some specific commitments. I wonder if my colleague would stand in this place today and commit to following through on the very commitments that our government made to these sectors.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, according to Canadian Business magazine:

The sectors where higher tariffs still exist—agricultural goods; food, beverage, and tobacco; chemicals, rubber, and plastics; and motor vehicles and parts sectors—will experience the largest export gains as a result of tariff elimination under CETA.... Overall, we estimate that tariff elimination on goods is likely to result in over $1.4 billion being added to Canada's product exports to the EU by 2022.

This deal is a historic deal that would benefit all sectors, and many sectors that the hon. member mentioned.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, many Canadians are deeply concerned over the investor court provisions in trade deals, which give foreign corporations more rights than those enjoyed by Canadian companies or ordinary Canadians. Does the member believe that the Canadian court system is not equipped to handle complaints from European companies?

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have full confidence in our justice system to protect Canadians and to protect Canadian jobs. That is why our government and the previous government have worked on a historic deal, one that is equal to NAFTA, or second to NAFTA, and we are looking to protect Canadian interests and Canadian jobs.

I want to quote from a CTV News article. “Stefan Renckens, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto, whose research interests include international trade deals and EU politics, said the elimination of tariffs on Canadian products in the EU will make Canadian companies more competitive in those lucrative markets”.

There are many experts who have been talking about this trade deal saying that CETA is a historic trade deal that will benefit in many different avenues, many different fields, and a lot of entrepreneurs and companies would benefit from this gold standard trade deal.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member outlined the benefits of CETA. Could he comment on the industry that would be most benefited by this agreement in Canada?

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are many industries that would benefit. As I mentioned, advanced manufacturing in my riding would benefit. On the west coast, it would benefit many forestry industries and many rural areas would benefit in the agricultural sector.

This is a great deal that would benefit many different sectors.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, as things stand, the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting Bill C-30 at third reading. It is with heavy hearts that we will vote against it. As everyone knows, we supported the Canada-Europe agreement in principle. The agreement will benefit Quebec in many important ways.

Right now, our neighbour to the south is fairly unpredictable. Some would even say erratic. The election of Donald Trump reminds us that hitching our wagon to the American star is not good enough. We need more than one partner. Europe is perfectly suited to be that partner.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage was absolutely right when she said yesterday that Quebec is the high-tech heart of Canada. We have an international reputation for the cutting-edge sectors such as aeronautics and artificial intelligence that are part of our economy. Thanks to our creative people, we are considered world leaders in sectors such as video games.

Quebec is also at the head of the pack in research and development despite inadequate federal government support. We have the most highly rated shipyard in North America. Quebec is a world leader in green energy production. In contrast to Canada, which is mired in tar, we will emerge victorious from fossil fuel dependency. Quebec's future is bright.

However, developing a leading-edge product is a long and expensive process. Our high-tech companies, our industries of the future, could not possibly be profitable based on domestic markets alone. We need access to the world. Our high-tech sectors depend on it. Our future depends on it.

The Canada-Europe agreement could have been a great agreement. It had the potential to be tailor-made for Quebec, which in some ways already serves as a bridge between North America and Europe. Approximately 40% of the trade between Canada and Europe is done with Quebec. On top of that, about 40% of European investments in Canada are made in my province of Quebec. The strength of the Quebec economy speaks for itself. Our development model is a little different than that in the rest of North America, but this does not frighten European investors. After all, Germany is much more unionized than we are, and it is doing very well, thank you. Europeans do not mind that our employees are more unionized than anywhere else in North America. The exact opposite is true of American investors, who fear the differences in Quebec, in part because Canada is doing a terrible job promoting and selling Quebec's strengths.

Considering the growing protectionism in the United States, Europe will be looking more and more to Quebec to act as a gateway to North America.

Yes, this agreement presented its share of opportunities, but we cannot support just any old thing. We see what happens all around the world when governments fail to support those on the losing side of trade agreements. The Canada-Europe agreement has its share of victims in Quebec, and Ottawa is neglecting to compensate them. Quebec is a trading nation and we have always played our cards right, despite the fact that Quebec is not independent and must continually fight to ensure that Ottawa takes Quebec's differences into account in trade agreements.

Unlike the government, we will not leave our people behind. We have a very stable dairy and cheese sector thanks to supply management. The Canadian government has chosen to favour the western beef industry at the expense of Quebec's cheese producers. The reality of the European market is quite different from that of Quebec's market. In Europe, producers are highly subsidized, which is not the case in Quebec. They can easily sell their cheese here in Quebec below cost. That is not possible in a system where supply meets demand in order to avoid waste and where farmers are ensured stability. More often than not, Quebec's cheese producers are small artisanal businesses, fragile businesses. The Canada-Europe agreement will open the Canadian market, including the Quebec market, to European cheese products, but the reverse is not true. Under WTO rules, the supply management system does not allow us to export our products. The cheese producers are in a lose-lose situation.

European businesses that receive very large subsidies will be able to sell cheese in Quebec at a very low price. That will put tremendous pressure on our producers. Given that Quebec produces half of Canada's cheese and more than 60% of its fine cheeses, Quebec is most affected by this agreement.

The agreement will give 7% of the Canadian market to Europe, specifically 18,000 tons of cheese. Almost all future imports will consist of fine cheeses. I will repeat that Quebec produces over 60% of Canada's fine cheeses and it will be the first victim of the agreement. It is estimated that cheese producers will lose more than $300 million year after year.

The government has never committed to compensating producers for all their losses. In fact, it offered the dairy and cheese industry a total of $350 million over five years. It did not provide any details about the criteria or the allocation. Moreover, it gave no guarantees for the future. All we were asking the government to do was to make a firm commitment to fully compensate producers for their losses. It never wanted to do that.

Quebec's cheese producers are resigned to the fact that the government is implementing the Canada-Europe agreement and is opening up our market to European cheese. Consequently, UPA is requesting financial compensation for the losses that dairy and cheese producers will inevitably incur. The Government of Quebec is also asking for compensation for these producers.

Our cheese producers are concerned, and the Canadian government has not done what is necessary to reassure them by giving them the guarantees they have asked for. Diversifying our markets is a good thing because having more trade partners will make our economy more stable. However, unfortunately, the Government of Canada has once again failed to consider the Quebec market.

Since Quebec is not a country, Canada speaks on its behalf, even though Canada does not understand the Quebec model. Often, the Quebec model is not compatible with the Canadian model. Of course, in those types of situations, the federal government does what is best for the rest of Canada, simply because it is more politically expedient to do so. It is a matter of numbers. That is what is happening again with the Canada-Europe agreement.

If the government had done its homework, it could have proposed innovative solutions, such as allowing artisans and small businesses to get import licences for European cheese. That way, they could have profited from selling European cheese and compensated for any losses incurred because of this agreement. If nothing is done, the large chains will get licences and they will be the ones to profit. That will be even more harmful to our producers. To date, the government has not given any indication that it is sensitive to the plight of our cheese producers.

In short, for all of these reasons, we cannot support this bill. The Bloc Québécois will not abandon Quebec's dairy and cheese producers. We made a firm commitment during the last election. We promised that we would support the Canada-Europe agreement only if the government promised to fully compensate the dairy and cheese industry. Since the government has not made a clear commitment in that regard, we will oppose the bill. The Bloc Québécois keeps its promises, and it condemns the government's insensitivity toward producers. We stand with producers.

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Joliette had a lot to say about agriculture. Agriculture is very often the loser in international negotiations. The parties agree on all kinds of issues, but agriculture is the last thing they talk about.

In Canada, we had the same problem with culture. The World Trade Organization held culture in low regard. Some years ago, Canada decided to push for an international instrument on culture. We wanted to remove culture from WTO negotiations and create an international instrument under UNESCO. We believed that future negotiations should not put culture on the same table as guns, submarines, computers and so on. Culture is the soul of the people, and we felt it had no place in the WTO, so we took it away from the WTO and found a new home for it in an international instrument under UNESCO.

Why not do the same with agriculture?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for his remarks.

Yes, we must protect culture because it is important. We must protect agriculture as well because it is very important. That is what the Bloc is doing now when we say that our dairy and cheese producers are not being compensated in this agreement.

We pledged to withhold our support if the compensation was inadequate, and we are honouring that pledge. If, someday, the government removes agriculture from international agreements or gives it special status such as that held by culture under UNESCO, we will be happy to work with the government. For the time being, agriculture is in the Canada-Europe agreement, and our producers are not getting proper compensation.

I am thinking of one cheese maker in my riding in particular, a Mr. Guilbault of the Fromagerie du champ à la meule in Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes. He is the kind of person we are standing up for.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member has any concerns about a couple of areas. One is, of course, with the issue going on in the United States with President Trump and his comments about renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement.

In NAFTA there is a “most favoured nation” clause, which means that if Canada negotiates any other trade agreement with any other country and it contains terms superior to NAFTA, we would then automatically have to give those provisions to the U.S. I wonder if the member has any concerns about that, given Mr. Trump's aggressive talk that he is looking to put America first and take trade preferences away from perhaps countries like Canada for the U.S.

Does the member have concerns that by signing CETA we will be voluntarily giving the Americans preferences and benefits at the very same time that they want to take away benefits from Canada? Does he have any concerns in that regard?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway for his remarks.

Yes, NAFTA does have a most favoured nation clause. However, to my knowledge, NAFTA goes further than CETA in areas like investment protections, among others. I do not see which items in the Canada-Europe agreement would force Canada to give any concessions to the Americans or items that go any further than what already exists, such as civil courts for compensation and all those kinds of clauses.

On the contrary, by signing CETA, one of the potential advantages, had our farmers and cheese and dairy producers been properly compensated, is that Quebec could have become the trade hub between Europe and the United States, especially with the Trump administration, which is rather protectionist. For instance, European companies could set up shop in Quebec or Canada and then export to the U.S. This could prove very beneficial from a jobs perspective.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening in strong support of Bill C-30, an act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures.

It has been a long time coming, more than a decade, and there have been so many people who have been involved on the Canadian side in helping shape CETA. Certainly, much credit is owed to Canada's world-class trade negotiators, who for 10 years did much of the heavy lifting. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge several hon. members in this House who played an instrumental role in concluding CETA.

Much credit is due to the hon. members for Abbotsford and Battlefords—Lloydminster. Under their leadership, Canada reached an agreement in principle with the European Union in 2014.

Credit is also owed to the hon. member for York Centre, who, as Canada's international trade minister, commenced the negotiations with the European Union back in 2009, and did a lot of the early heavy lifting, as did Stockwell Day when he was the minister of international trade.

Credit is owed to our current Minister of Foreign Affairs, who, in her previous portfolio as Minister of International Trade, helped get CETA across the finish line.

Finally, credit is owed to former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. It was Prime Minister Stephen Harper who had a great vision when it came to market liberalization and free trade. For 10 years, Prime Minister Harper presided over a decade of success when it comes to trade, including the signing of 46 historic free trade agreements, CETA being the largest of those free trade agreements. Indeed, CETA is the largest free trade agreement since NAFTA.

Canada is a trading nation. Two-thirds of Canada's GDP is tied to trade. One in five jobs is tied to trade. Since the ratification of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement in 1988, trade between Canada and the United States has flourished. Each and every day there is some $2 billion in trade occurring between Canada and the United States. Of course, Canada has preferential access to the U.S. market through NAFTA.

With CETA, Canada stands to gain preferential access to the largest economy in the world, the European Union, which is comprised of 28 member states, has a population of more than 500 million people, and boasts an annual economic activity of nearly $20 trillion.

What is more the European Union is the largest importer in the world, which complements Canada's export-driven economy. Canada already does a lot of trade with the European Union. The European Union is Canada's second-largest trading partner. Each and every year, Canada does approximately $80 billion to $90 billion in trade with the European Union.

Over the years, Canada's economic ties with the European Union have been strengthened. When we look at exports, for example, we have seen exports to the European market increase from some $17.9 billion in 1997 to $40 billion today. With CETA, Canada's economic and trade ties to the EU promises to grow even stronger. Indeed, an early Canada-EU joint study projected that bilateral trade between Canada and the European Union stands to gain by some 20%, thanks to CETA.

For my province of Alberta, CETA is nothing short of a big win. The European Union is Alberta's fourth-largest export destination. It is also Alberta's third-largest trading partner. Simply put, what CETA means for Alberta is the elimination of almost all EU tariff lines on Alberta exports destined for the European market.

Under CETA, EU agricultural and agrifood tariff lines will be eliminated, 94% will be eliminated immediately. That number will eventually rise to 95%. With the elimination of those agricultural and agrifood tariff lines, there are tremendous opportunities for Alberta's large and vibrant agricultural and agrifood sectors.

In that regard, the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance projects that Canadian agri-food exports to the European Union will grow by some $1.5 billion, thanks to CETA.

It is not just the agricultural sector that stands to benefit from CETA, frankly it is all sectors of the Canadian and Alberta economies. That is because under CETA, nearly 100% of non-agricultural tariffs will be eliminated. That presents enormous opportunities for many sectors, including the service sector.

The service sector comprises about 54% of Alberta's GDP; 1.5 million Alberta jobs are tied to the service sector. Under CETA, Canadian service suppliers stand to gain the best market access to the European Union compared to the EU's other free trade partners. What that means is new markets and new opportunities for Alberta and Canada's service suppliers.

Investment is important to the Canadian economy, and it is absolutely crucial in connecting Canada to global supply chains. When we look at, for example, investment, Canadian foreign direct investment to the European Union last year equalled $210 billion. That is roughly 21% or 22% of Canadian foreign direct investment directed into the European Union.

What CETA promises investors is to help facilitate investment, both for Canadian investors and European investors. Not only that, CETA means more certainty, more transparency, and more protection for investors.

While there is much to be proud of and much to look forward to with CETA, it is not entirely good news, because when our government left office 15 months ago and passed the torch to the Liberal government, we gave the government, essentially, a free trade agreement with the European Union on a silver platter.

For whatever reason, the Liberals decided that it somehow was not good enough, that they would reopen it. What did that result in?

It resulted in a lesser deal for Canada when the European Union made the commitment to regional governments to put in agricultural safeguards to protect against import surges. When we talk about investment, which is very important and a very important aspect of CETA, there is also some uncertainty surrounding the investor-state settlement dispute process, which will not be part of the provisional coming into force of this agreement, which it was under the deal that was negotiated by our previous Conservative government.

It is not all good news, but that should not take away from the fact that on the whole, CETA is a good deal. In that regard, when we take a step back and look at CETA, and what it means for Canada, one important fact is that it will mean that Canada will have preferential market access to both the United States and the European Union, the two largest economies in the world.

Combined, the United States and the European Union represent about 50% of global GDP. From a strategic standpoint, CETA is a big win relative to the United States, inasmuch as Canada would get first mover advantage in relation to the European Union.

That presents many opportunities for Canada in terms of becoming an investment gateway for European Union investors seeking access to the United States market for NAFTA, and an investment gateway for U.S. investors seeking access to the European Union market.

CETA means more trade, more opportunities for Canadian businesses, and it means more jobs for Canadians. After 10 years of hard work and tough negotiations, Canada is on the cusp of achieving this historic free trade agreement.

For jobs, for growth, and for the long-term prosperity of Canada, let us get it done. Let us get CETA across the finish line. Let us pass Bill C-30.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would certainly agree with the previous member's statement regarding our shared values with the Europeans and the opportunities for expanding markets.

Does the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton believe, as I do, that this agreement is a positive antidote to the rise of protectionism?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have seen over the last year or so a troubling turn in many parts of the world, a turn inward. I would submit, now more than ever, it is absolutely essential that we get this agreement done.

The United States is an important ally and an important trading partner with Canada. That will always be the case, but we can no longer have all our eggs in one basket, and that is what CETA provides. It provides an opportunity to open new markets and new opportunities for Canadians. It is why, now more than ever, we must get this deal done; we must implement CETA.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, in the previous Parliament, Prime Minister Harper offered $4.3 billion in compensation to Canada's agriculture sector for the damage that he acknowledged CETA would do to that industry. One does not offer billions of dollars to an industry if it is not going to experience damage.

Prime Minister Harper offered $1.1 billion in compensation to the auto sector, an acknowledgement that the Canadian auto sector was going to be damaged by CETA. Why else would he give taxpayer dollars to the auto sector? Of course, he promised $400 million to Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would ask for my hon. colleague's thoughts on the damage that is going to be done to those sectors, particularly now that we have heard nothing from the Liberal government about honouring any of those promises to those sectors.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, in terms of the compensation package for dairy producers, the compensation package offered by the Liberal government is a pittance compared to the compensation package offered by the previous Conservative government. It is a disappointment and an issue that Conservatives are going to continue to hold the Liberals to account on.

The House resumed from February 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the Canada-European Union free trade agreement. This is of course an outstanding initiative many years in the making. The reasons to support it are very simple.

At the bottom line, when the study was done in advance of the commencement of negotiations on this Canada-Europe free trade agreement, the study revealed that based on the assumptions it was looking at, an agreement of this nature would deliver an annual boost to the Canadian economy of some $12 billion. That is not small change. That is significant money and it would make a big difference in people's lives. What is also significant is that study was undertaken many years ago, and the likely benefits with the passage of time and the growth of economies are in fact much greater than that. That is the cornerstone we look at: a $12-billion boost in the economy, and that would mean a real difference in the lives of ordinary people, of workers, and of companies across Canada that would have the opportunity to benefit from that.

When I became Canada's trade minister, this negotiation was under way and I very quickly ensured that it became our number one trade priority, the focus of our policy and of our energies. I saw in this potential trade agreement the ability for us to do great things, to really be able to benefit, and that it was in fact a tailor-made opportunity for Canada. For Canada, we also benefited from the fact that it was a bit of a trial run in the negotiations for later negotiating with the United States, but it also meant that we in Canada were in a kind of privileged position. From a trading perspective, we were in a position better than that of any other country in the world.

We had already, through Canada-U.S. free trade and then the North American Free Trade Agreement, tremendous access to our neighbours to the south: the United States, the largest economy in the world. Together with the European Union, they are the two largest economies in the world. Should Canada get this agreement in place, we would be the only significant major developed economy in the world with free trade agreements in place with both the United States and the European Union, the two largest economies in the world.

Picture what potential and opportunity lie there. Suppose individuals anywhere in the world want to set up a manufacturing plant or a business in a place where they can have access to the two biggest markets in the world. They would look at the facts, at the agreements in place, and they would come to the inescapable conclusion that there is one good place to do that, and that place is Canada. That is why this agreement is so important. That is why this agreement would attract significant investment.

When I was trade minister, as we were promoting this I often spoke with potential investors and they talked about the things that made Canada attractive. Some of those things are not as strong now as they were then, including things like our very significant low debt which meant that taxes could stay low for the long term, and our low taxes that meant that it would be very competitive to work in Canada. Some of that has eroded in the past year or so under the current government and the trajectory it is on. That being said, we are still in a pretty good position there. We have other advantages including the most skilled workforce in the world. This additional piece of access to these two great markets is something that would make a tremendous difference to a lot of those investors, and the reason why they were looking at investing in Canada. That would mean jobs for Canadians.

There are other reasons why I think that the straightforward calculus in the study of the potential benefit here underestimates the potential that Canada has. That is because for Europe we have such a significant population, a diaspora from every single country in the European Union that we have the potential, through those ties and linkages, to really capitalize. We have ties of people and ties of language. In this country there are people who speak every single language in the European Union. We have ties of culture and even ties of family and ties of having done business in the past. Those linkages provide the structure on which we can build a transatlantic relationship of strong trade through those diaspora populations. It represents a real opportunity.

For Canada, our trading relationship has benefited, obviously, enormously from the proximity of the United States and our cultural similarity there, and that is why that is such a strong trading relationship.

In some ways it has been almost too easy for Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs to say that they are just going to focus on the United States, because it is there, it is easy, its people have the same language, we watch the same television programs, they can talk to them about what happened on the Grammy Awards last night and we all know what each other are talking about. Canadians have chosen that route, sometimes to the exclusion of other opportunities in the world, all too often simply because it is that easy, and it is hard to criticize people for doing that.

However, with the Canada-European Union free trade agreement, we have an opportunity to do something a little bit different, because of the nature of that diaspora population, because of the strong affection of the people from those countries who live here in Canada and have roots in those countries. It is because of their desire to maintain those ties, and I think because of their recognition of their understanding of linkages and the ties they have through family, through people, and through knowing the culture. They recognize that there is a real opportunity for them without having to go through many of the challenges of familiarizing themselves with the way of doing business in a new country. They are already halfway there, and that provides a tremendous opportunity for them.

I can tell members that, as trade minister, I have worked extensively in putting together support for this agreement, which was near universal among those diaspora communities and among the chambers of commerce. For example, we had a Canada-Austria chamber of commerce and a German chamber of commerce. All of these groups already existed, and a couple more formed, so that we had one for virtually every single country in the European Union that was looking to encourage those ties and prepare for the day when we would get this Canada-European Union free trade agreement in place. By orienting them to think that way, to get ready for it, to prepare to capitalize on the opportunities that would follow, Canada has enormous potential to do that. It was one of those things I was working on when I was trade minister and of which I was very proud.

If we look at that potential for Canada, it is tremendous. The potential for this agreement is positive, as all trade agreements, if done properly and negotiated well. Canada has a tremendous track record. Certainly our Conservative government did very well with the agreements that it negotiated. They all have the potential to be win-win situations, where a rising tide lifts all boats, and people through good agreements benefit from what each other have to offer.

Of course, with Europe, there are other advantages. An agreement can be negotiated on good terms, because we have similar high environmental standards, similar high labour standards, and a similar high standard of living. Therefore, we are not looking at unusual disadvantages. We also have similar cultural and legal roots and systems, all of which means that we can work well and do business well together once that trade agreement is in place.

However, there are other very good reasons why this trade agreement offers opportunity for us, and it goes beyond the straightforward economic. I look at the Canada-European Union free trade agreement in some ways as an extension of positive foreign policy for Canada.

I think Canada is a model country to the world, but this is also an opportunity for us to continue what we certainly were doing in the previous government, which is working to advance our Canadian values on the world stage. We should be proud of what those Canadian values are. We should not be shy about advancing them on the world stage. Our support for human rights, the rule of law, democracy, and freedom are very important fundamental values.

Members may think that when we are talking about Europe, these are all settled questions. However, as we have seen through the scope of the past century, Europe has been wrought by conflict, and we significantly saw a period of half a century where Europe was divided between a Soviet-ruled communist-dominated east, and our free and democratic western models. Economically, there was no contest, which is one of the reasons, ultimately, that the Soviet Union and those communist systems collapsed, and I will speak more about that later.

However, we have an opportunity to provide, through a trade agreement and further ties, greater reinforcement and support for the development of a democratization and stabilization process of those countries. This is particularly the case in an era where we see a somewhat more assertive Russia under the leadership of Putin, where they are looking to expand their sphere of influence to try and have adverse influences on some of the countries around them.

I am thinking particularly of the Baltic countries: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania; and, of course, there are the other former communist countries: Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Poland, Bulgaria, and Romania. These are all part of the European Union. It is important for us to strengthen those economic ties, so that we can help to anchor all of those countries more firmly into the west.

There is an economic dimension, but there is a very strong political dimension. It is a geostrategic dimension. All of those countries already have EU membership. NATO membership has been incredibly important to them. This is an opportunity to layer on top of that, through trade agreements, further ties that are economic and people oriented, which will help to anchor them in the west.

As I said, that is becoming increasingly important. There was a time, when we thought the Cold War was over, that these were considerations that we did not need to concern ourselves with. As we know, sadly that has been changing, and it has been changing over time. If one looks at some of the risks that exist from an aggressive Putin government, the first example, of course, was the intervention of the Russians in Georgia. On the pretext of dealing with challenges in the Abkhazia and South Ossetia republics, which were restive republics, there was a lot of Russian interference. It might be added, in fact, that this was Russian occupation in the form of what were so-called peacekeepers and observers. Ultimately, a conflict was provoked in Georgia, which was, under leadership of Mikheil Saakashvili, pursuing a very strong policy moving to the west, moving to become part of NATO, becoming part of the European Union. In fact, even though it was not part of the European Union, they had that flag flying.

The objective of Putin was to try to stop them from turning to the west. He did successfully provoke a conflict, which I think has had the very unfortunate after-effect of making the balance of the NATO countries reluctant, particularly those in Europe, in taking on Georgia as a member of NATO, notwithstanding that was and has been their clear and expressed preference. We in the Conservative Party believe strongly that countries should have the freedom to choose their allies, that no other country, such as Russia, should be able to impose a veto on that.

However, one of the lessons that was learned from the Georgia experience was that one of the critical decision points was the decision of the NATO members not to extend a membership action plan to Georgia, which seemed to be the event that triggered, that shone the green light for Putin to move in there and create instability.

Similarly, we saw the same thing happen in Ukraine. It was following the Euromaidan uprising to restore democracy and freedom there, and, again, a desire by the people to turn to the west, that provided the excuse, and the basis or the motivation for Putin to move on to the annexation of Crimea, and, of course, the occupation of parts of the Donbass region with the conflict that continues there, which indeed may be escalating in recent days and weeks.

That is why it is so important for us, on another trade agreement, to continue that process towards the trade agreement with Ukraine. It is, again, part of that process of anchoring them, as their population overwhelmingly wants to be anchored, to the west, to the European Union, to NATO.

However, the clear strategic objective of Putin is to try to prevent that from happening and to create a situation of military instability.

We have an opportunity within the European Union, through this agreement, to keep that from being repeated in places like Poland and the Baltics. They have very genuine and well-based fears that this could happen. There are countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, that are on the front lines against Russia and have experienced Soviet occupation in the past. We have an opportunity, through our current efforts there, to change that. We have a military deployment there, for which I congratulate the Liberal government. There is a very wise initiative that it has undertaken to provide a deployment to Latvia, to show that we, Canada, are committed strongly to our NATO partners. We are showing resolve under article 5 and sending a clear signal that, should an effort be made to instigate an asymmetrical aggression or something like that in the Baltics, we would resist that. We can, through our free trade agreement, also provide those strong linkages there.

That is important in the Baltics, particularly if we look at the geostrategic situation right now. Right across the border, they have what is called the 76th Guards Air Assault Division, the Pskov battalion. That is literally right across the border from the Baltics. Why should we be concerned about them? These are the most aggressive end of the Russian military. They were involved in the Chechen campaigns. They were there in the Georgian campaign. They have been there in the annexation of Crimea and the Donbass. They have conducted very aggressive military manoeuvres on a continual basis on the borders and in the airspace of the Baltic countries.

For that reason, everything we can do to show our strong economic and trade ties to these people will help advance our foreign policy objectives for stability in that area. There are also growth opportunities in these countries. When we have trade agreements, we want to have them with high-growth economies. Where do we find high-growth economies that are compatible? Those former Communist countries of the European Union, because they were held back for half a century, have been doing catch-up, and that means high economic growth and great opportunities for trade agreements.

For example, the European Union's average economic growth in the decade or so from 2004-15, was 1%, but listen to these numbers. Bulgaria, over the same time, had 2.8% average economic growth annually. Czech was 2.4%; Estonia, 2.6%; Latvia, 2.7%; Lithuania 3.1%; Poland, on fire, 3.8%; Romania 2.9%; and Slovakia 3.9%. These are tiger economies.

I look at a country like Estonia, a real model tiger economy, and it has a 10% debt-to-GDP ratio. We in Canada are pretty proud of our 31%. The European Union averages 85%. I might add that our 31% was at the end of the Harper government, in contrast to the Chrétien government when it was at 64%, a number I think we are heading back to pretty quickly under the current government. The fact is, that is a positive example of where there is economic growth. It is a country with policies such as two years of fully paid maternity leave and a low flat tax rate. These are the kind of people we want as our compatible trading partners. These are the people from whom we can benefit. These are high-growth economies for the foreseeable future.

When we look at trade agreements around the world, the logical thing is to look to those high-growth economies. Because they were held back for 50 years, that also means that their trading relationships are not as lengthy and established. So much in that Soviet era was, of course, to Russia and back. They want to turn more and more to the west, and that means we have more opportunity to create new economic ties, to benefit from that, and to help them benefit from those kinds of economic ties.

One of my focuses as trade minister was to always deal with those countries, to look at building those ties, to look for the opportunities that exist there. There is the country of Slovakia, with a tremendous auto parts industry. We have a pretty good track record on auto parts and auto assembly ourselves. These are the kinds of linkages that we should be looking for, not just the old, big companies. I know people like to worry about the Bombardiers and the SNC-Lavalins. However, we have an opportunity, through our diaspora communities and our smaller populations, to get into those countries. Their desire to do it in a free enterprise trading way is so strong because of that half a century of being left behind and what that did to their living standards, what that did for their thirst for freedom, their thirst for free enterprise, their thirst for opportunities to advance themselves.

That is why support for the Canada-European Union free trade agreement is not surprisingly strongest in exactly those countries. They share with us those same geopolitical strategic imperatives, and also that same desire for success and economic growth, and opportunity and advancement.

I am very proud to stand in support of what I think is one of the proudest legacies of our Conservative government. I am very proud to see the current Liberal government continuing to ensure that it is put in place, to show to the world that Canada is a country that is proud of its free trading track record, at a time when there are forces of protectionism under way. We were lucky to have Stephen Harper at the helm in 2008 when the global economic downturn took place. If it were not for his forceful voice in the room at meetings like the G20 meeting in Pennsylvania, at that critical time, we might have seen a wave of protectionism. However, we did not see that.

We saw a commitment to keep borders open and to keep trade strong. Those forces against that are still there, but Canada can and should remain a model. We have willing partners to do that in the Canada-European trade agreement, and I encourage everyone in the House to support it.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my riding is built on trade, as most of our ridings are. However, a lot of people in my riding have expressed doubt to me about the value of free trade, which is something I do not necessarily agree with them on, but their perspective is not completely unreasonable. My riding's main industry is forestry, and it has had a pretty rough ride with respect to trade.

I wonder if my colleague from York—Simcoe could tell us how free trade helps the middle class in this country.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we saw the benefits of it after the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, and now the North American Free Trade Agreement. We saw unprecedented growth. I remember the great debate in the 1988 election when we heard how we were going to lose our culture industries, lose the CBC. That did not work out that way. We were going to lose all of that fine wine we have, such as Baby Duck, and there was some crackling rosé, or something like that. Those wines somehow did get lost, but the replacement was an unbelievably high-quality wine industry, not just in places like the Okanagan, but in Niagara. We have seen that industry spread all across the country.

The opponents of free trade commented throughout about the spectres of the terrible things we will lose. Guess what? We received even better things, in terms of jobs, economic growth, and prosperity. I could go through sector after sector. Under the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement or NAFTA, we did far better with the auto industry than we did under the old Auto Pact. That is another example of how we have succeeded.

Canadians can compete. Canada can do well. Canada has the best workforce in the world. Canadians have ambition and drive. We need to open the doors and encourage people to walk through those doors, and we will see increased prosperity for Canada.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his kind words about the Okanagan wine industry. That is an industry that has benefited from free trade.

I wanted to ask this question of Liberal members today, but I see that in this last day of debate on this important legislation, the government is not putting up any speakers, so I will ask the member for York—Simcoe.

We debated the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement last week. The NDP is happy to support that agreement. We are very much in favour of trade agreements that benefit the people of Canada. However, we have some strong concerns about CETA. Although we do 40% or more of our European trade with Great Britain, the U.K. is now pulling out of the European Union. We have no analysis of how that might affect Canada, but we have given concessions to the European Union for this agreement.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that we have an agreement already negotiated and in place that the U.K. is part of provides a basis for us to continue on the same terms, or to negotiate even better terms if that country leaves the European Union. This is not something I consider a negative thing but rather a positive thing. We already have a head start on negotiating a free trade agreement with the United Kingdom that, say, the United States simply does not have.

Again, I talk about the privileged position that this agreement will give Canada compared with other potential locations for people to locate their investments in. We will be in a tremendous spot to be able to do that, even if we determine to have the exact terms in the Canada-European Union free trade agreement continue with the U.K. It is a potential negotiating approach for others as well.

I am not concerned that the U.K. will turn its back on Canada. This gives us a head start on having such a free trade agreement, and that is good news for Canadians.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government, under the watchful eye and governance of Stephen Harper, signed many trade agreements. Many things went into not just signing the agreements but putting into place investments that would ensure our goods and our people could benefit from those trade agreements.

I wonder if our hon. colleague from York—Simcoe could comment on the gateway program and the marketing programs that our Conservative government under Stephen Harper invested in, to ensure our small and medium enterprises could not just get access to those markets, which is important, but to teach our small and medium enterprises how to take advantage of such trade agreements.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member points out not just one of the most significant elements of our infrastructure program but that the gateways, Atlantic and Pacific, were really good models for identifying what we need to be good at trade. What kind of infrastructure needs to be in place? How do we make our ports work as effectively as possible to ship containers? How can we put ourselves in a position, once we negotiate these trade agreements, to support the trade that follows? Time is money in any kind of business, particularly trade. When shipping goods, that is particularly important.

I am very proud of the investments we made in our gateways that have put us in a position to capitalize on agreements like this. I know that the next step, one that, as I indicated, has been a little more frustrating, is getting Canadian businesses to step up and take advantage of the opportunities. That is why the Canada-European Union agreement is so important, because we already have the people-to-people ties. We have the infrastructure in place. We are putting the legal agreement in place. Then we can encourage folks to take advantage of these people-to-people ties, capitalize on the potential for trade, and through that, give us the economic growth, the job creation, and the increased standard of living that would come from all of these things.

Canada is a relatively small country. If we trade only with ourselves, we will be a very poor country. We depend on trade with the world. This is a tremendous signal to the rest of the world that it can, indeed, benefit from a trade agreement, even at a time like now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I concur with the member when he says that Canada would be very poor if we did not have the ability to trade. It is our trade that enables us to do as well as we do economically and socially, I would argue.

One thing worthy of at least noting is that given the current climate in North America, once this trade agreement is in place, Canada could actually be a fairly important linchpin, if I could use that word, in the trade corridor between Europe and North America.

I wonder if the member might provide his thoughts on just how important Canada's positioning would be because of this agreement.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would act less as a corridor into the United States, and I am not sure that is the best avenue, than as a location for investment.

I go back to the point I made. Money is mobile. Factories move. This is why we are very concerned about things like a carbon tax and other tax hikes the Liberal government has been proposing, because those things hurt our competitiveness.

People can move wherever they want in the world. One thing this agreement would do for us is give people a location where they could invest and ensure that they would have access to the United States and to Europe for the goods and products they produced here.

When people look at where they are going to invest, would it make sense to invest in a country in Europe if they would not necessarily have access to the United States, such a huge market? They would have only half the access they want. If they want to be in both places, this is the place to be once the Canada-European Union free trade agreement is in place. It would bring jobs here. It would bring foreign investment here, which is a positive thing. I know not all parties in the House have always felt this way, but we in the Conservative Party believe in that, because that kind of investment means jobs that help people in local communities, that help families have more prosperity and the rising standard of living that we as Canadians believe is so important for the future of our families.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-30 and about the important role trade plays in our Canadian economy.

This is one of the few bills I can praise the current government for. It is something I wish I could do more often, if the Liberals would follow the Conservative path.

They obviously picked up on the great work we were doing as a government and have been able to help carry it through. Maybe the Liberals can take some of those lessons on things like balancing the budget or lowering taxes. One can only hope that maybe their understanding and recognition of the importance of trade will extend to other things that are important to our economy and to our fiscal situation in this country. Again, that is me being an optimist.

Let me get to the heart of the matter we are speaking to today, which is trade itself. Canada is a trading nation, and trade really is the lifeblood of our economy. In fact, one in five jobs in Canada, and about 60% of our GDP, are linked to exports. We do not have to look very far or very hard to figure out how important trade is to our economy and to opportunities for Canadians, based on those statistics.

History has shown that trade is the best way to help us create jobs and growth and long-term prosperity here in Canada. As trade increases, so does our nation's economic success, which obviously then puts more money into the pockets of hard-working Canadians. That is really what it is all about, at the end of the day. People talk about a strong economy and opportunities. What it all boils down to is putting more money into the pockets of Canadians to feed their families and provide better opportunities for their children. That is really what we are speaking about when we talk about trade and economic prosperity.

Under our previous Conservative government, the Stephen Harper government, one of our key accomplishments was that we launched one of the most ambitious pro-trade plans in our country's history. It was probably the most ambitious, in fact. I would like to take a moment, while I am on that point, to add a note of praise. I have heard others who spoke do the same, but it is important that it be said, because credit should be given where credit is due.

I look at the member for Abbotsford, who was the former minister of international trade, and the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, who was our agriculture minister, and the great and hard work they put in. I know the travel schedules those two individuals and others had to undertake to accomplish some of the things that were accomplished under the Stephen Harper Conservative government. Under the leadership of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself, some great things were done, but it was a lot of hard work on the part of those members in particular. I want to note the legacy they created, because I think that is important. The two of them remain here in the House and continue to work hard in opposition to encourage these kinds of things to continue.

Under the leadership of those individuals, we were able to conclude free trade agreements with 38 countries. Examples are Colombia; the European Free Trade Association, which includes Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland; Honduras; Jordan; Panama; Peru; South Korea; and the 28 member states of the European Union. There were some pretty significant advancements there.

We also concluded, signed, or brought into force foreign investment promotion and protection agreements, FIPAs, with 24 countries. That was more than any other government in Canadian history as well.

One of our historic achievements was the Canada–Korea Free Trade Agreement, which was Canada's first free trade agreement in the Asia Pacific region, which is one of the fastest-growing regions in the world. South Korea is not only a major economic player and a key market for us in Canada but also serves as a gateway for Canadian businesses to the entire Asia Pacific region. This agreement is projected to increase Canadian merchandise exports to South Korea by 32% and to boost Canada's economy by $1.7 billion.

Additionally, in November 2013, our Conservative government released the global markets action plan, which was our pro-jobs, pro-export plan. It was aimed at creating new opportunities for Canadians, through trade and investment, by targeting emerging and established markets with broad Canadian interests.

Obviously, when we look at our record, we strongly support international trade, and we support international trade initiatives that will generate increased economic activity, jobs, and a collaborative relationship between Canada and emerging economies.

Canada should also strive to maximize the benefits we have as a free trading nation and establish trading relationships, beyond North America, with these emerging markets. To that end, it is important that the government vigorously pursue the reduction of international trade barriers and tariffs. This is why we supported Bill C-13, the trade facilitation agreement, which received royal assent not long ago. The trade facilitation agreement will simplify customs procedures, reduce red tape, expedite the release and clearance of goods, reduce costs associated with processing, and make international trade more predictable for Canadians.

Predictability is certainly key. We see the effects when we lack predictability when we look at the current government and its never-ending, constant changes to regulatory processes for energy project reviews. We can see what the lack of certainty creates when the chill is put on investments. Certainty is certainly key when we look at providing opportunities for businesses to help grow the economy. They need to have certainty.

Canadian investors, importers and exporters of goods, and small and medium-sized businesses will certainly benefit from the implementation of the TFA.

Another trade agreement that was successfully negotiated by the previous Conservative government was the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. This agreement will continue to strengthen the Canada-Ukraine partnership in peace and prosperity. Total bilateral merchandise trade between Canada and Ukraine averaged $289 million in 2011-15. It is expected to expand by 19% as a result of the implementation of this trade agreement. With this agreement, Canada and Ukraine will eliminate duties on 99.9% and 86% of our respective current imports, thereby benefiting both Canadian and Ukrainian exporters and consumers. Our GDP will increase by about $29.2 million under that agreement, and Ukraine's GDP will expand by about $18.6 million. Canada's exports to the Ukraine will increase by about $41.2 million.

Canada's export gains will be broad-based, with exports of pork, machinery and equipment, transport equipment, other manufactured products, motor vehicles and parts, and chemical products being some of the leading industries. Our previous Conservative government also established market access for beef in Ukraine in July 2015. Canada exported about 35.5 million dollars' worth of agriculture and agrifood and seafood products to Ukraine in 2014. These obviously show some of the benefits of trade and trade agreements and what they can mean for Canada.

Let me get to the trade agreement we are talking about today, the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement. Negotiated by our previous Conservative government, CETA is by far the most ambitious trade initiative Canada has ever concluded. Once this agreement comes into force, Canada will be one of the few countries in the world to have preferential access to the world's two largest economies: the European Union and the United States.

The Conservative Party strongly supports international trade initiatives that will generate increased economic activity, drive prosperity and job creation, and foster greater co-operation between our democratic allies.

A joint Canada-EU study concluded that a trade agreement with the EU could boost Canada's economy by about $12 billion annually, and increase bilateral trade by 20%. It is important to put some sense to what that means for the average Canadian and Canadian families. It is the economic equivalent of adding about $1,000 to the average Canadian family's income. It would add about 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy. That is something that the government has failed at to this point. This would be something to help create some jobs to put people to work, and provide new opportunities for Canadian families to increase their income.

When CETA comes into force, nearly 100% of all EU tariff lines on non-agricultural products will be duty-free, along with close to 94% for agricultural products. The agreement would also give Canadian service suppliers the best market access the EU has ever granted any of its trading partners. That is great news for the 13.8 million Canadians who are employed in the industry. It accounts for about 70% of our country's GDP.

Under CETA, Canadian firms could bid on contracts and supply their goods and services to the three main EU level institutions: the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the European Council, as well as the EU member state governments, and thousands of regional and local government entities. The Canada-EU trade agreement would give Canadian suppliers of goods and services better access to the EU's $3.3-trillion government procurement market, which would provide them with significant new export opportunities.

Investment plays a key role in the Canadian economy. CETA would provide Canadian and EU investors with greater stability and transparency for their investments. The stock of known foreign direct investment by Canadian companies in the EU totalled about $210 billion at the end of 2015, representing about 21% of Canadian direct investment abroad. Conversely, in that same year, known foreign direct investment from European companies in Canada totalled more than $242 billion, representing 31% of total foreign investment in Canada.

This is a landmark agreement. It has resulted from years of hard work, especially by our world-class trade negotiators who did all the heavy lifting on this.

I would like to focus in and speak to the benefits CETA would bring to my home province of Alberta. Times are tough in Alberta right now, so when we hear any good news on the economic front, it is something we can greatly appreciate. There is no question Alberta stands to benefit from the preferential access to the EU markets. The EU is already our province's fourth-largest export destination and our third-largest trading partner. Once in force, CETA would eliminate tariffs on almost all of Alberta's exports, and provide access to new market opportunities in the EU. CETA also includes provisions that would ease regulatory barriers, reinforce intellectual property rights, and ensure more transparent rules for market access. Alberta exporters could benefit from all of these improved conditions. When we look at some of the opportunities there, the main merchandise exports from Alberta to the EU are agriculture and agrifood products, advanced manufacturing, metals and mineral products. Some of our other exports include chemicals and plastics, fishing and fish products, forest products, and information and communications technology.

I would also like to take a minute or two to talk about one very specific opportunity that we have already seen open up as a result of this agreement.

In 2014, when negotiations had proven to be successful toward this agreement, a beef processing plant in my riding reopened. It had been a farmer-owned plant that had closed down in 2006, and had been sitting vacant since then.

In 2014, we were able to announce that there was a buyer, Rich Vesta from the United States, who is well known in the beef industry and has brought a lot of great opportunities to some of the businesses he has been involved with in the United States. He decided to purchase this facility and bring it back online. He chose to do that largely based on this agreement. He saw an opportunity for specific cuts of beef to go to some niche markets that would be based around some of the trade agreements we had been able to sign for Canada, in particular, the opportunities that CETA would create. Even before being implemented, we already could see the benefits of these opportunities.

That plant had been sitting there dormant since 2006. I was able to tour it recently and it is nearing its opening. It is expected to open later this month, in fact. When I toured it a couple of months back, I could see it was really coming together. I heard about all of the innovations and improvements being made. This is going to be an absolute world-class facility. The processing innovations that it is going to bring to Canada are amazing. They are all based on trade opportunities being created by some of the trade agreements under the Conservative government and the hope generated by this particular agreement as well.

We can already see the success stories and I am sure they will continue. It is something that people are very excited about and proud of in my home community of Airdrie, as well as Balzac in Rocky View County, where the facility is located. It will create jobs for people in the area. Many people are struggling right now and trying to find work. Not only will this create opportunities for people, but down the line there will be opportunities, such as more buyers for our cattle as well. Small cow-calf operations would benefit, right up through feedlots, etc., because it would create opportunities for everyone. People are really excited about what it would mean for my area.

I will take a minute to speak about some of the opportunities and benefits that CETA would bring to the forestry sector in Canada, which is another example. The EU is actually the world's third-largest importer of forest products. In 2015, it accounted for about 14% of global forest product imports, or about $46 billion. While most Canadian forest products already enter the EU duty-free, when CETA comes into force, Canadians will also enjoy quota-free market access. This means Canada would have a preferential trade advantage with the EU that many competitors will not have.

As well, bilateral dialogue on forest products would enhance Canada's ability to influence the development of EU measures, reducing the potential negative impacts of EU measures on Canadian exports, and help ensure continued access for Canadian forest products to the European Union. That would provide Canada with a really unique window into the regulatory development process in the EU. Canada would then be able to raise industry concerns with proposed regulations at a very early stage. That would be of benefit to our forestry producers as well.

We are also looking at a new phytosanitary measures joint management committee that would facilitate discussions between Canadian and EU experts. It would provide a venue for experts to resolve issues impeding trade before they become major problems.

CETA would also establish a framework for co-operation on the full scope of animal health, plant health, and food safety provisions.

Tourism is also something that I focus on greatly. It is pretty important in my riding. We already have great links and ties between Canada and the European Union countries when it comes to tourism. I have often said that tourism breeds trade and trade breeds tourism, so opportunities would be created by those links that already exist. This agreement would help to build on all of those things.

I stand today to show my support for CETA and for the opportunities that it would create, the jobs it would create certainly for small and medium-sized businesses in our country and right on through. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the words from the member across the way, but it is important for us to recognize that the legislation on the EU agreement which is before us today is something that has been worked on for the last number of years. It was great to see the co-operation between the current minister and former minister in getting everything signed off and getting us to the legislative point. To try to give the impression that it was a done deal is somewhat stretching it, I suspect, but it is equally important for us to recognize there was a great deal of work that was in fact done prior to this government.

The member made reference to other trade agreements. In particular, he made reference to the Ukraine agreement which we just passed on Friday. Seeing that legislation pass is a very positive step forward. Maybe the member could draw a comparison between the Ukraine trade agreement and the EU trade agreement and how Canada's middle class will in fact benefit by both.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would concur with the statement that there was work done obviously by both parties. The previous Conservative government did a lot of hard work, a lot of heavy lifting to get us to the goal line, and yes, I would certainly acknowledge the work done by their government, which was able to push it across the goal line. It is a positive thing. We are glad to see that the Liberal government has taken up the work on something that we believed was so important for the economy. As I said during my speech, I certainly would hope their government would seek to do that more often, that they would seek to build on the record and important work that was done by our Conservative government, in particular, with respect to balancing the budget. The member talked about building on some of the work that we did. We left them with such a great position, in terms of the fiscal situation, with a balanced budget, but they just blew it, absolutely blew it, in less than a year. Certainly one would have hoped they maybe would have chosen to follow our example and that work in some of those areas as well, such as balancing the budget, lowering taxes, things like that.

However, at the very least, we can give some credit where it is due. On at least one area of our economy, they have been able to follow some of the work that we have done on some of these trade deals and that is a huge benefit. I just hope they might pick up on some of—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in this speech, the member for Banff—Airdrie mentioned, as did the other member, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement which we debated last week. Again, that is a trade agreement the NDP could get behind. However, we have some serious reservations about CETA, one being the investor-state dispute mechanisms that would allow international corporations to sue Canadian governments outside the normal court system. Also, there is the fact that it would raise prices of prescription drugs. That would make it not only more expensive for Canadians to remain healthy but would make it more expensive for provincial and federal governments to bring in a much-needed universal pharmacare system which Canadians have been calling for.

I wonder if the member would comment on that.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there certainly was one thing I heard the member say that was new and novel, and that was a trade agreement the NDP could get behind. It is nice to hear there is always hope. In one instance, the NDP chose to see something that was good for the economy, for Canadian businesses, for Canadian workers and support it. However, it is not something we often see from New Democrats, which is unfortunate. With Canada being a trading nation, it is so important to ensure there are opportunities for free trade with as much of the world market as possible.

Diversity in markets that we can trade with is key as a country like Canada relies so heavily upon our trade with other countries. In an increasingly global world, there is no question that this is a key thing. It is quite unfortunate that the NDP does not really see fit to support more Canadian businesses and Canadian workers through the importance of trade.

The New Democrats should try to focus on that and think about the jobs and opportunities this creates for Canadian businesses and families. I talked about some of the benefits during my speech about Ukraine agreement and the EU agreement and what it would mean. When we talk about the European Union agreement, I said that it was about $1,000 for the average Canadian family, about 80,000 jobs created for Canadians. Is that not important to the NDP?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at CETA and all the free trade agreements that come before the House for ratification, a lot of this work was done by a previous government. I am always looking forward to the next opportunities for Canada, next opportunities for my home province of Alberta, of new markets with which we can trade. The mandate letter of the Minister of International Trade talks about modernization of two agreements with Israel and Chile, and about the potential for China and India's future agreements. There are many smaller states that Canada could find opportunity for an export market and importation of goods.

Does the member share my concern that the Liberal government has no plans for future free trade agreements and this may be it? We may not see any new agreements signed or ratified in the House by 2019.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very key point. I have to give credit where it is due. The Liberal government had picked up on the work we were already doing, which was largely completed. To finish that is good, and I will give credit where it is due. However, I agree with the member that Liberals seem to lack any kind of ambitious agenda of their own in this regard. It seems to fall in line with their view of the economy in general. I do not get a sense they have any plans that would help to grow and build our economy.

Trade is one example. As the member mentioned, Canada has all kinds of opportunities to build on the record of the Stephen Harper Conservative government. I do not get a sense of any ambition on the part of the Liberal government to try to build upon that, beyond what we see here. It seems to line up with how the Liberals view the economy in general. Their tendency is to try to grow government rather than have the private sector grow, develop, and create jobs so Canadians get back to work. Their focus seems to be more on growing government and putting money in the pockets of their Liberal friends.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite wrong in his assessment. The government has taken a very proactive approach on trade. We do not need to take lessons from the Harper government, which inherited a multi-billion trade surplus and turned it into a multi-billion trade deficit. We now have an administration that has proactively dealt with important issues. In the Prairies, there is the canola issue, the pork industry, benefits for the beef industry, all through the Minister of International Trade, all of which was done through this administration.

Would the member at the very least recognize that by having a proactive, aggressive agenda on trade, the biggest benefactors are Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it? At the end of the day, we are trying to give more stability and growth within that middle class, thereby giving the economy greater strength. A healthy middle class means a healthy economy. Would the member agree?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that trade is a very key part of creating opportunities. That is why our Conservative government was so ambitious in our trade agreements. However, what is the current government doing? I do not see any new trade initiatives being undertaken. What are they? I did not hear the member mention a single initiative or a single country with which the Liberals were working toward an agreement. As I said earlier, it falls in line with the typical approach of the Liberal government.

The Liberals want to talk in generalities and platitudes about things being important, but when it really comes right down to it, what do they do? Nothing. What are we seeing as a result?

Look at my province of Alberta. Thousands of people are out of work. People are looking for opportunities. They are looking for hope. They are getting nothing from the government. Instead they are getting huge deficits and new tax increases in carbon taxes and other taxes. The Liberals will not grow the economy that way. They need to get to work and do some of the things like creating opportunities.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

Today we are here to talk to this important bill, Bill C-30. I am glad to have a second opportunity to speak to this, the economic and trade agreement with the European Union, commonly known as CETA.

The bill is now on its third reading, having been studied by the Standing Committee on International Trade. This will probably be my last opportunity to speak to this important bill.

In January, I completed a series of 11 town halls on seniors issues. Just so the House understands, when I asked the people of my riding what the most important issue was for them, by far seniors issues were number one. I took the opportunity to travel around the riding. I went to larger and smaller communities to really hear the stories from seniors and from the people who supported and loved those seniors. I wanted to hear about the specific challenges they faced on a daily basis.

Unfortunately, it was a very sad series of town halls. I heard stories about having to make decisions between medication, heating their homes, and feeding themselves. Again and again, I heard of seniors who had no access to the guaranteed income supplement because the process in getting that guaranteed income supplement was a challenge for them. When it came down to the core, the biggest issue was the cost of medication for seniors.

I know this is not an issue that is exclusive to North Island—Powell River. It is all over the country. Seniors are falling more and more behind.

The last time I spoke to this bill, I raised a few issues. The first was the issue of prescription drugs, for which I profoundly care. I mentioned that with the provisions in CETA, consequently the bill would change intellectual property rules for pharmaceuticals. Under this agreement, consumers, including our seniors on fixed incomes, could expect to have their drug costs increase by more than $850 million annually.

In the town halls, a lot of constituents came up afterward and shared stories with me. They also shared stories during the town halls. I remember one woman who told me that she and her husband were in good health right now. They were recent retirees and life felt pretty good. However, when they looked at the future, they realized they had to plan for when they would not be as healthy. Unfortunately, part of their plan included the time when they would have to legally separate, and would have to deal with the fact that the cost of living would become so high due to medication costs and having to put somebody in a care facility. The woman told me that she had worked hard her whole life, but with the increasing cost of pharmaceuticals and cost of living, she did not know how they would make it, even though they saved, they had well-paying jobs, and they had a good pension. The reality for seniors today is one that is leading to more and more poverty.

While in opposition, the Liberals demanded that the Conservatives present a study on the financial impacts on provincial and territorial health care systems and prescription drug costs. In government now, the Liberals are telling provinces and territories that they will cut health care transfers, while pursuing agreements that risk increasing drug costs for provinces and territories. I am very concerned about this.

The reality on the ground is that people will have serious health issues. More and more people will have to go to emergency rooms because they have not taken their medications. I remember one doctor sharing with me that seniors were unable to afford medications so they were going to the emergency rooms every day to get refills. Think of the expense. If the costs go up, the implications will be devastating on our health care system.

I was glad that our great trade critic, the member for Essex, brought up this important issue in the committee. The NDP brought forward amendments to make certain that an analysis of the impact of CETA on pharmaceutical drug costs would get done. What happened? This is an important issue, and our constituents and Canadians deserve to know. There will be little to no debate on our amendments. They were all rejected, showing no interest in fixing the flaws of the deal or addressing the serious concerns of Canadians.

Jim Keon, the president of the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association, at committee said:

From a cost perspective, as I've said, generics on average now are selling at something like 20% to 25% of the price of an equivalent brand-name product. If you delay for two years, you're paying an extra 75% to 80% on that product for an extra two years. That affects provincial drug program budgets; it affects employee plans; and it affects people who pay out of pocket, and those costs are very significant.

Our seniors, and all Canadians, deserve better.

The former minister of international trade and now global affairs minister was honest about why Liberals have decided to rush this agreement through Parliament. For them, the deal symbolizes an open Canada in light of rising protectionism. I am sorry, but trade with Europe is just too important to get wrong. Canadians expect a good deal, and they deserve a good deal.

We need to be talking about some of the serious concerns with CETA so we can make a better deal for Canadians, because this is about health care costs. This is about medication. I have heard too many stories from health care providers talking about seniors and other people splitting their medication in half, not taking the full dosage. If the costs go up, this means people will not be getting the medication they need to take care of themselves.

I support deepening the Canada-EU trade relationship in order to diversify our markets, but there remain significant concerns that need addressing. Once again, when in opposition back in 2014, Liberals decried the limited time to study this agreement. In their dissenting report, on p. 47 they wrote, “The brevity with which this committee has dealt with this agreement should be of concern to anyone interested in let alone concerned about the CETA.” Where is that language now? Why are we not taking the opportunity to do that very important work of looking at just the parts that we should be seriously concerned with, the parts that would have huge ramifications on Canadians?

Maude Barlow said, “Given the process could take another five years in Europe, what's the rush here other than another photo op?” Is this the reality? I do not know, but Canadians deserve a good approach, not just a fast one.

The biggest roadblocks to CETA's ratification by all the EU members are a referendum in the Netherlands, opposition from the Bundesrat in Germany, and the European Court of Justice examination of CETA. Therefore, let us take the time to figure out the issues, mitigate them, and get it right. I am afraid the Liberals do not see this reality, and for them it is like a big show.

I saw and heard some shocking truths from the seniors of North Island—Powell River. These are not unheard of across Canada, where seniors are facing multiple challenges. It is a great honour for me to have the new role as critic of seniors issues. I am really proud of the work that the communities I represent have done in educating me about what those particular concerns are around seniors' challenges. Right now, we are not seeing that follow-up with the funding for home care so seniors can stay in their homes and get the support they desperately need. It saves money. It is good for the health and well-being of people who built our country. Now we are seeing CETA, which would have huge impacts on their health care and getting the medication they so desperately need.

Canada really has to take a moment and ask the government why it is okay for seniors to be put in a position where they cannot afford the medication they need, when they are making choices between household expenses, like food, power, and heat, and medication.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand the NDP's position, which is not terribly clear.

In the past, the NDP has opposed most free trade agreements, with a few exceptions, including the agreement with Jordan, for instance.

Why would anyone oppose an agreement that will allow trade with the European Union, the world's second-largest economy?

Does the NDP not want Canadian businesses to increase their bottom lines and create jobs? Moreover, this would result from an agreement that promotes a new progressive trade agenda, thanks to its chapters on environmental protection, sustainable development, and labour.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we take a moment to reflect on the fact that there are serious concerns. We are not saying absolutely no, but we are asking why we are not taking the time to look at these real concerns and make sure that we are doing it right.

This trade agreement is so important. We need to get it right. We need to make sure that we are looking at parts of it, which should make us all think about it seriously, such as making sure that there is an opportunity for pharmaceuticals to be less expensive, and making sure that we are looking at the investor-state provisions.

In NAFTA, we were the most sued country of the three. These are serious issues, because the taxpayer is going to pay to address these issues.

This is about really digging deep. It is about making sure that we do it right. It is making sure that we take the time to do it right, and that when we sign an agreement, it is something that brings the opportunities but does not sell away too many things for Canadians.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting when NDP members talk about getting more consultations, if we can talk more, or if we did this or that. At the end of the day, when we do all of that, they are still are not in favour of the deal.

The reality is, NDP members will never be in favour of a deal like CETA. They look at all the negatives in it. Even though every province is comfortable with the pharma side of things, even though in NAFTA we had 5.3 trillion dollars' worth of investment and only $140 million in ISDS payouts, they would still see that as a negative. Therefore, it does not matter what we say, as they will just view CETA or any trade agreement as negative.

My question for the member is this: What would it take for the NDP to actually say, “Yes, this is a good deal”?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think I said it very clearly in my speech. We need to make sure that we are looking at the realities. So many people are falling behind. When we are increasing the cost of medicine, it is a big issue for the people we serve across this country, and we need to look at that.

The member's argument is that the provinces are fine with it. Well, constituents of mine do not know how they are going to make ends meet. Therefore, we really need to be talking to the people who will have the physical impact.

The other reality is that we need to look at the investor-state provisions, and we need to make sure that we fix some of these. This is not about being anti-trade. We have demonstrated repeatedly and supported trade agreements. However, we want to make sure that this is the best trade agreement for Canadians that it can possibly be, which means that we take the time to do it right. We are just encouraging the government to do that.

The reality is that 28 EU member states have to ratify this agreement. Therefore, what is the rush? Why can we not have the discussion? I do not see what the rush is. Let us make sure that we look after Canadians and we take the time.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for North Island—Powell River for her speech, especially in her new role as the NDP critic for seniors and really underlining the effects that increased pharmaceutical costs will have on our low-income seniors.

My question concerns Canada's dairy sector. The previous government offered Canada's dairy farmers $4.3 billion in compensation, but the Liberals have changed it to a paltry $250 million over five years.

We are both lucky enough to call Vancouver Island home, and a lot of our constituents have great concern over food security and food sovereignty. We also have some small-scale cheese producers. I wonder what the member can tell the House about the impact this very little compensation will have on the small-scale cheese producers on Vancouver Island.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of having not only cheese and yogourt producers but also dairy farms in my riding. They definitely came to me with this and talked about their specific concerns.

Again, the reality is that these industries create good-paying jobs in our communities. The industries are small but vigorous, and they work hard every day. It is unfortunate and very hard on these industries when we see the lack of funding that is there for them.

I will continue to work with them, but this is another issue where the government really needs to take some accountability and realize that we need to keep these businesses strong. They mean a lot in our small communities.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured to rise in the House to speak to this important bill. Indeed, the bill relates to an important trade deal, or free trade agreement, with the European Union. We appreciate how natural it seems for Canada to enter into much more intense and closer trade relationships with the European Union, and for a number of reasons. First of all, Europe is a natural trading partner for historical and cultural reasons. Furthermore, several European countries have legislation that is similar to ours or often even better than ours when it comes to environmental protections, collective bargaining, workers' rights, and where unions fit in society and in the economy.

We should realize that, of course, we need to have a free trade agreement with the European Union and increase our trade relationship with the EU. I agree. However, this deal is so huge that it needs to be negotiated properly. We will not accept just any deal that is reached hastily or under pressure, simply because the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet want a good photo op with some nice handshakes that they can post on Facebook. It is much more important than that.

As my colleague pointed out earlier, we should have taken the time to properly review this free trade agreement, which, I would remind him, was negotiated in secret under the previous government, the Conservative government. At the time, the process was heavily criticized by the Liberals. However, in their usual fashion, the Liberals started to change their tune once they came to power.

I would cite a recent example to argue the importance of proper trade with Europe. On Friday, I was in my colleague's riding, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. We visited a small business called Utopie MFG, in Saint-Narcisse, near Rimouski. The business employs about 30 people. It makes alpine skis and snowboards. I had no idea how these things were made. I learned some amazing things during our visit. Every ski is made by hand with hardwood. This company's chief competitors are Austria and China. There are only two businesses that manufacture alpine skis in Canada, this business in Saint-Narcisse and another in Whistler. It is important for them to have access to the European and U.S. markets.

In every small community, there are entrepreneurs who are starting up businesses, innovating, and making new products, and who need the opportunity to export their goods to foreign markets.

We want Utopie MFG to be able to sell its skis in the United States, Europe, and anywhere in the world where there is snow. That is why we need a good free trade agreement, and we must not rush into it as the government is currently doing. I would add the Liberals are exceptionally gifted when it comes to using words to say the opposite of what they mean.

Once in power, the Liberals copied the free trade agreement negotiated by the previous Conservative government. It is the same free trade agreement, but it has suddenly become a progressive agreement. It is the same thing but they have tacked on the word “progressive”. Given that it comes from the Liberals, it has magic powers. Abracadabra. I would like to be able to do that with my kids at home. It is the same as what we had before. This agreement is a threat to many of our economic sectors, including cheese producers, who will see 17,000 tonnes of European cheese enter Canada, without having any protection and receiving only a pittance in compensation.

I also went to the Saguenay last December. We visited Fromagerie Blackburn, a family cheese company that started out as a dairy farm. Its cheeses have won prizes in Europe. The company is currently expanding, but growth could be stalled by the massive arrival of European cheese if we do not provide the protection and assistance the company needs.

How can the government abandon our cheese producers who have also been growing for years in Quebec? Thirty years ago, people were eating cheddar cheese and that is about it. There were no other types of cheese available, besides the kind eaten on toast in the morning. However, today, there are dozens of great cheese producers across Canada, particularly in Quebec. How can the Liberal government abandon them and offer them almost nothing in the way of compensation? That is a concern for us. My colleague also mentioned it in her speech earlier.

Another concern is the fact that this agreement with Europe deals with intellectual property and the associated definitions, which will impact the price of prescription drugs. The progressive Liberal-Conservative agreement will delay the introduction of new generic drugs in Canada by three and a half years. Big pharma will obviously be thrilled, but this will directly impact those who need those drugs.

According to estimates, the yearly cost of drugs in Canada could increase by $850 million to $2.8 billion. That will have a huge impact on the people who need those drugs and who do not have good private insurance, since few provinces provide public insurance. Canadians are the ones who will have to bear these costs at a time when they are already struggling to pay their bills and make ends meet. It has to be said: the Liberal government does not care that this agreement will benefit large pharmaceutical companies to the detriment of seniors, the sick, and people with disabilities.

There is another very fundamental thing that concerns us about the free trade agreement with Europe. We have talked about economic sectors, exports, and the cost of drugs, but there is a dispute settlement mechanism in the free trade agreement with Europe that is extremely dangerous for our governments and even for the quality of our democratic life. Think chapter 11 of NAFTA, only in the free trade agreement with Europe.

I do not understand how a progressive agreement can give companies the option of suing a government or a level of government for making regulations that could jeopardize their future profits. Talk about belt and suspenders. Companies make plans to invest. If a government makes a decision that is in keeping with the will of the people or to protect public health, public safety, or the environment, those companies could take legal action against that government before the trade tribunal and demand compensation for the loss of expected future profits.

That is handing over tremendous power to corporations and big companies to the detriment of democratic choices made by the elected representatives of the people. This kind of dispute settlement mechanism subverts democracy. That is extremely dangerous, and the NDP will never stand for it. We will never agree to giving big companies that kind of power. It happened with NAFTA. Canada was sued several times. It cost us millions of dollars, and we do not want to make the same mistake again with the European Union.

We are not the only ones saying so. People in the European Union share our concerns, including in Germany, the Netherlands, and of course in Belgium, where the Walloon Parliament stood up and set conditions that had to be met before it would accept the Canada-European Union free trade agreement.

People like José Bové are also concerned that the agreement is going to weaken environmental standards and social programs on both continents, whether here in Canada, with respect to pork or beef production, for example, or in Europe, with respect to accepting oil-related products that produce a lot of greenhouse gas emissions, which goes against the philosophy of people from the European Union right now.

This deal is dangerous, and we should have taken the time to study it properly.

These are the reasons the NDP will be voting against Bill C-30, knowing full well that a good free trade deal, a good trade agreement with Europe, would be in our interest. However, we cannot afford to mess this up, which is what the Liberal government is doing.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague about extended pharmaceutical patent protection.

He mentioned extensions of three or three and a half years. However, from what I understand, it is two years. I would like some clarification on that.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we could double check. According to the information I received, it was three years or three and a half years for changes to the definition of “intellectual property”. However, even if it is two years, that would still have an impact on the price of drugs, which is what we are concerned about.

I want to take this opportunity to say that when the Liberals were in opposition, they asked the Conservative government to conduct an impact assessment on the provinces and their pharmacare budget. I wish they still maintained that position. Now that they are in power, I would like them to conduct that impact assessment.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand the NDP's position, which is fairly unclear.

Why are they against an agreement that will allow free trade with the European Union? Does the NDP not want Canadian businesses to be able to boost their sales and create jobs?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we want our companies to be able to grow and export so that they can create jobs. We need to diversify our exports because we are very dependent on our American neighbour. However, we do not want to go about it in just any old way. We cannot accept the dispute settlement mechanism included in the Canada-European Union free trade agreement because it puts too much power in the hands of big companies, large corporations, to the detriment of Canadians, our elected officials, and democratically elected governments. That is a major problem for us.

I would like to know what my colleague has to say to Quebec cheese producers who will have to bear the brunt of the arrival of 17,000 tons of fine cheeses from Europe every year. The Europeans have protected approximately 200 types of cheese by giving them a controlled designation of origin. In this free trade agreement, the Liberal government did not protect any Quebec cheeses by giving them a controlled designation of origin.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism that is included in chapter 11 of NAFTA.

Here is a real-life example. Suppose, under NAFTA, that an American multinational wants to invest in building some sort of plant in Mexico. The local government conducts an impact assessment and realizes that, if that plant is built, it will pollute the groundwater. However, because of the chapter on dispute settlement, the local government will not win a dispute, even though its citizens' drinking water will be polluted by the plant. The company will win because it might lose money. That means that the governments cannot protect their citizens or the environment. For example, Canadians may see their environment harmed by large corporations because of a similar clause in the agreement with Europe.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hochelaga for her comments.

She is absolutely right. That is the basic problem with free trade agreements. They give a huge amount of power to major corporations and are detrimental to our interests, our neighbours, and the people in our communities. My colleague's example of the plant in Mexico highlights that.

I have another example. An American company is currently suing the Canadian government for $250 million because the Government of Quebec placed a moratorium on oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of St. Lawrence to protect ecosystems. This company is now suing our governments. Taxpayers could end up being out of pocket just because we want to prevent pollution in the St. Lawrence River.

That is exactly what the NDP is rejecting, and that is why we will be opposing Bill C-30.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-30 to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states.

Before I start, I would like to pass my thanks on to my colleagues, the member for Abbotsford, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, and former Prime Minister Harper, for their hard work in bringing this about.

I want to start with the obvious. Trade is good. Trade makes markets better. Trade lowers prices for consumers and gives them more options. Trade does not make life better just for wealthy Canadians; it makes life better for all Canadians.

I am always proud to stand in this House to defend agreements and legislation that make life better for Canadians. I spoke to Bill C-30 at second reading back in November. In that speech, I spoke to four points about why I am supporting the agreement. I want to expand on a few of them today.

First, as I mentioned, trade is good for Canada. A more competitive market means Canadians have access to the best products, at the best prices. Lowering or eliminating tariffs on goods that we import for our own consumption means that the price we pay for these goods will drop.

Again, I will always stand up to defend policies that lower prices for my constituents, and for all Canadians.

Trade agreements help Canadians from both perspectives: consumers benefit when we have lower prices and producers benefit when they can have greatly expanded markets to sell their goods.

Farmers in Alberta can now sell their products to not only people in Ontario, Quebec, and B.C., but once CETA passes, basically duty-free to Belgians, Germans, the French, and every other country signatory to this agreement. The EU represents some 500 million people, with almost $20 trillion in economic activity. The EU's imports alone are worth more than our entire GDP.

If we want our producers to grow, we must ensure they can access newer, bigger, and hungrier markets. When our producers have more customers, they need more workers to fill that demand. I do not think I have to remind members in this House that we could use a few extra jobs in Alberta right now.

CETA is projected at a $12-billion annual increase to our economy. I know $12 billion can be an abstract number, but a $12-billion increase is equivalent to adding $1,000 to the average family income each and every year, or 80,000 jobs.

Some of those jobs will help my constituents in Edmonton West and the constituents of colleagues across Alberta.

CETA will help Alberta grow, access new markets for our goods, and will help Albertans access products at lower prices.

For our producers, the EU is already Alberta's fourth-largest export destination and our third-largest trading partner. The EU currently imports over $2 trillion annually, of which Alberta makes up $1.4 billion. We have just .07% of the European market. We have plenty of room to grow. Alberta's main exports to the EU include high-value items as well as resources, such as nickel, turbo-propellers and other machinery, cereals, medical instruments, cobalt, electrical machinery, mineral fuel and oil, services, wood pulp, inorganic chemicals, meat, animal feed, grains, seed, fruit, plastic, vehicles, pharmaceuticals, beverages, iron and steel products, and animal products.

For our consumers, nearly 100% of all non-agricultural products will be duty-free and nearly 94% of all agricultural products will be duty-free.

Once in force, CETA would eliminate tariffs on almost all of Alberta's exports and enable Alberta's job creators access to new market opportunities in the EU. Eliminating tariffs on almost of all of our exports means we would have more competitive pricing to offer to the more than 500 million new customers. It is like moving our lemonade stand from a neighbourhood street corner to Times Square. The potential for us is enormous.

CETA would also provide Alberta exporters with a competitive advantage over exporters from other countries that do not have a free trade agreement with the EU. That is like moving our lemonade stand from the neighbourhood street corner to Times Square where our competitor is stuck in a location with no traffic and higher costs.

On the day CETA's provisions enter force, 98% of Canadian goods would be duty-free. For agriculture and agrifood products, almost 94% of EU tariffs on Canadians goods would be eliminated, rising to 95% once all phase-outs are complete. This duty-free access would give Canadian agricultural goods, including beef, pork, and bison, preferential access to the European market.

I know some of my colleagues have this stereotypical image that Albertans are all ranchers and cowboys. I hate to play into that stereotype, but I cannot pass up this opportunity to remind the House how important beef is to the Albertan economy and what CETA means to this. According to the CBC, because of CETA, Canada is poised to supply about 1% of all the beef needs in Europe under this new pact. That would mean $600 million for Alberta, $600 million in new business, $600 million in new jobs.

As well, the following industries in Alberta would benefit. The first one is metals and minerals. Alberta's metals and minerals sectors include natural gas, conventional oil, coal, minerals, and the oil sands. More specifically, Alberta's metal refinery and mineral sector is a foundational industry that allows for infrastructure development as well as energy and natural resource production in Alberta. It generated 28% of the province's total GDP in 2011, and employs more than 181,000 Albertans, creating employment opportunities that provide some of the highest earnings in the Alberta economy. Exports of metals and minerals currently face tariffs as high as 10%.

There is agriculture and agrifood. Alberta has more than 50,000 farms with crop and livestock production. They produce an abundance of world-class agriculture commodities. The agriculture and agrifood sector employs nearly 76,000 Albertans and contributes 2.5% to the GDP. Between 2010 and 2012, the exports of agriculture products to the EU suffered tariffs of over $35 million. That is $35 million that can be reinvested in the economy, jobs, and productivity improvement.

There are forest products. The forest products sector employs nearly 19,000 Albertans and represents a significant component of the economy. Forest product exports to the EU average $62 million and face up to a 10% tariff right now. These barriers would be eliminated under CETA.

There is advanced manufacturing. Alberta's advanced manufacturing industry employs more than 28,000 people. Between 2010 and 2012, Alberta's exports of advanced manufacturing products to the EU averaged a quarter of a billion dollars, which face tariffs as high as 22%. Industrial machinery, one of Alberta's key advanced manufacturing exports to the EU, faces tariffs of up to 8%.

Alberta is a major producer of chemicals and plastics. It employs 11,000 Albertans, an important part of exports to the EU, with exports averaging just under $100 million a year. These exports currently face tariffs of up to 6.5%. Again, these would be eliminated.

In addition to beef and agriculture products, CETA would also provide for increases in eligible trade for products with high sugar content. This stipulation would enable a company like PepsiCo, which has a large bottling facility in Edmonton's west end as well as other parts of Alberta, to continue to ship its products abroad and find new customers in new markets duty free. The stipulation for sugary products would also help local Edmonton start-ups, such as JACEK Chocolate Couture, which opened in Sherwood Park last year, and has now expanded into Canmore as well as downtown Edmonton. It will help it to hire new employees and reach a massive new market base.

CETA will open up markets for our burgeoning alcoholic beverage companies, which products are very well known to members of the Alberta Conservative caucus. There are over 50 breweries in Alberta, including favourites like Big Rock, Alley Kat, and Yellowhead. There are distilleries like Eau Claire Distillery, which makes gin and vodka from only local Alberta grains, and Park Distillery, based in Banff, that makes a vodka with glacial waters from the Rockies.

Closer to my home in Edmonton, there is Red Cup Distilling in Vegreville. I am wearing the button today supporting Vegreville. There is also the Big Rig Craft Distillery in Nisku, by the Edmonton airport, where people can get brum, which is basically rum made with sugar beets instead of sugar cane. I want to note it is called brum and not rum, so as not to run afoul with the rum lobby. If the all-powerful rum lobby is watching on CPAC today, please note I called it a brum and not a rum.

Edmonton is home to many head offices of world-class companies that are said to grow, compete, and win with access to this huge new market. PCL Construction has finished Rogers Place in downtown Edmonton, the finest hockey and event arena in the entire world. Stantec engineering, Booster Juice, and Weatherford are all based in Edmonton.

Edmonton is also renowned for its start-up culture, and many new enterprises will benefit from increased access to markets and added IP protection. TappCar is a ride-share company that has gained ground by working with municipal governments rather than circumventing local laws. Drizly is an app that arranges liquor deliveries. Should it expand to the Parliament Hill area, I am sure that sales will spike massively. My wife's personal favourite is Poppy Barley shoes, which has grown from a small, shared office space downtown to Edmonton's famous Whyte Avenue, with pop-ups in Toronto.

Edmonton also boasts having three of the top fifteen start-up companies in Canada, as named by Metabridge. The first is LoginRadius, which does customer analytics and serves over 1,000 businesses worldwide. There is Mover, a company that handles cloud file migration. The third company is Showbie, which helps teachers, schools, and students get connected across technology platforms.

Edmonton's bread-and-butter business, the oil and gas sector, stands to benefit tremendously from CETA by increasing market access to our oil and gas products. The Prime Minister wants to phase out oil and gas, but CETA represents a grand opportunity for Canada's job-creating and economic-driving industry to capitalize on new customers.

Supplier diversification is one of the European Union's top energy priorities. Currently Russia has 31% of the EU's oil and gas import market share, making it first. Canada has just 1% of the market share, placing us 26th. It is well known that Russian President Putin uses his country's oil and gas reserves as a weapon. Given that Russia supplies almost one-third of the EU's oil and gas, this position is strong. The EU needs to diversify, wants to diversify, and Alberta has plenty to offer. Not only will this create wealth and jobs in Alberta and the rest of Canada, it will help to free Europe from the bullying and blackmail of the Russian president and deprive him of his desperately needed revenues that he uses to threaten our democratic allies. The Right Honourable Stephen Harper famously told Putin to get out of Ukraine. CETA will help us get him out of Europe's oil and gas business.

As CETA reduces and eliminates tariffs across the board for oil and gas products, Canada and Alberta are well poised to fill the gap and become a crucial energy ally. This is an opportunity that we should not pass up, and frankly cannot pass up. The government may perhaps one day support energy east, and then we can ship Alberta oil to Quebec and New Brunswick for refining and stop sending jobs and billions of dollars to despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia.

Beyond energy, free trade helps foster greater co-operation between our democratic allies. We strongly support international trade initiatives that strengthen the bonds with friendly countries, increase economic productivity, and drive prosperity and job creation.

The world is full of uncertainty, and prior champions of trade and co-operation are retreating. This comes at an unfortunate time for Canada. Our country has the fastest-growing population in the OECD, and the west has the fastest-growing and youngest population in Canada. We have products. We have workers. We have the businesses. We will continue to have more people and more products over the next few years, and we need places to sell these goods.

CETA is an opportunity for us to secure access to the largest single market in the world at a time when other countries are retreating. Not only will this agreement help to give our job creators access to growing and demanding markets, it will give Canadians a head-start advantage over our competitors who are retreating from the global marketplace.

Even after all of these benefits I have discussed and talked about, CETA's detractors argue that the costs outweigh the benefits. They will say that CETA gives too much power to corporations and will allow them to sue governments for compensation if they change policies. The argument is callously thrown around as a holistic and negative point. It is just an assertion.

According to a summary in The Globe and Mail, CETA opens up a new process called the investment court system, or ICS. The ICS essentially acts as a permanent tribunal to handle complaints brought by businesses. Canada and the EU have hailed the ICS as a breakthrough offering a high level of protection for investors while fully preserving the right of governments to regulate and pursue legitimate public policy objectives, such as the protection of health, safety, and our environment.

It is perfectly legitimate for businesses that act in good faith and set up shop in new countries because of a trade agreement to be able to protect themselves from arbitrary changes by the host government. If governments agree to and sign a trade agreement, they agree to be bound by the provisions of that trade agreement with some exceptions. It is unreasonable to make governments the sole power holder in this arrangement.

If we expect companies to come to Canada, to do business in Canada, to create work for Canadians, and create wealth for our country, we must be able to guarantee them some modicum of stability and predictability, or at least grant them some recourse if a future government makes arbitrary changes that violate the provisions of that trade agreement. This is a two-way street, and businesses do not deserve less protection just because they are creating jobs, making investments, and earning profits.

At the same time, it is also important that governments are able to react to changing circumstances and create legislation that is good for Canadians in the event that exceptional circumstances arise. This is why CETA has built in provisions to protect both business and government.

I want to note here that Canadian investment in the EU was almost a quarter of a trillion dollars as of 2014. That is Canadian investment that will also be protected from the whims of a changing political landscape in Europe.

The Consider Canada City Alliance is a partnership with 12 of our largest cities. These cities represent 63% of Canada's GDP and 57% of our population. They work to increase investment in Canada and grow trade opportunities.

Our own highly respected Edmonton Economic Development Corporation is part of this coalition. Michael Darch, president of the CCCA states:

We see Canada moving toward creating the largest trading and investment block in the world. The cities that comprise the Consider Canada City Alliance account for 63% of Canada's GDP fully understand that our economic prosperity is built on global trade and investment....

Modern commerce is much more than moving goods across the borders. It is about financial and knowledge-based consulting services, digital commerce and entertainment, and the freedom of movement for the skilled workers who are creating the 21st century global economy.... CETA addresses these and many more opportunities. Canada is demonstrating leadership in building the agreements necessary to protect our economic future and guarantee access to prosperity for all Canadians.

The Consider Canada Alliance has listed its top five reasons for supporting CETA. Number one is “dollars and sense”. It “will increase Canada-EU trade by 20% and boost Canada's economy by $12 billion...”

Number two is “unparalleled market access”. “Once...CETA comes into force...investors in Canada will have assured preference access to both NAFTA and the EU” with nearly one billion customers combined and a GDP of over $35 trillion.

Number three is “enhanced investor protection”, as I just mentioned. “CETA will provide Canadian and EU investors with greater certainty, transparency and protection for their investments.” Again, I note, Canadians have invested a quarter of a trillion dollars in the EU. That is Canadian investment that will be protected from the whims of a changing landscape in Europe.

Number four is “easing of investment restrictions”. “The net benefit review threshold under the Investment Canada Act will be raised from the current $600 million to $1.5 billion, following CETA's entry into force.”

Number five is that it “signals open trade, not closed borders”. “While populist movements in some developed countries appear to be antagonistic to expanding trade agreements, Canadian cities are welcoming aggressive investment interests from across Europe and around the world during investment missions conducted in partnership with Federal [and provincial] colleagues.”

Again, I repeat, trade is good. Trade lowers prices and enables competitive and valued Canadian businesses to expand, hire new employees, and prosper in a globalized world. Trade helps strengthen ties with our allies. We will always support international initiatives that nurture greater co-operation between Canada and our friends overseas. Free trade allows billions of dollars in Canadian exports to reach new markets and ensures that European goods flow into Canada at competitive prices for our consumers. Free trade will help Alberta's businesses grow and prosper at a time when Alberta needs it most.

I am proud to support this agreement that will help Alberta's small and large businesses, Albertan consumers, Canadian industry, Canadian producers, and that will deepen our long-standing ties between Canada and Europe.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, with the rise in protectionism, I wonder how my colleague opposite would respond to what impact not ratifying CETA at this time may have on our economic stability as a country, as well as jobs across Canada.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a disaster if we stepped away from this right now. We all see what is going on with the U.S., with Brexit, with countries throwing up borders, walls. I do not want to exaggerate issues, but this is exactly the issue that helped to cause the first major depression, with countries immediately throwing up protectionist walls. If we make a stance and say that protectionism is good and open borders and open trade are bad, we are going to drive this country into a ditch. It will be decades before we can recover.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, why do we need to have investor-state dispute mechanisms in these trade agreements? Clearly, and certainly in this agreement, there are several countries in the EU that are against these provisions that allow foreign corporations to sue Canadian governments, whether they be federal, provincial, or municipal governments, and affect our sovereignty over our own laws and country when we want to help improve our environment and our social well-being.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we need dispute resolution to protect companies that are investing in Canada to send a strong signal that Canada is a safe place to invest. We have it seen in Alberta, where the current NDP government is changing rules on long-term investments, and it is driving companies out. Some of our largest job creators have said that they are not going to invest in Alberta anymore. They are moving to Texas because of arbitrary government changes to laws.

Canadians have invested a quarter of a trillion dollars of Canadian wealth in the EU. Our investments in Europe have to be protected from the whims of government changes just as much as we need to protect the money of investors in Canada who are making jobs for Canadians, investing in our infrastructure, and investing in our communities.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Edmonton West appears unaware of the litany of cases Canada has lost where the motivation for taking action was to protect public health and protect the environment, such as regulating against a toxic gasoline additive. I do not know why anyone would want to see foreign corporations have superior rights compared to domestic ones.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when I listen to my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, I am reminded of Will Rogers' comment about never meeting a gentleman he did not like. I think this member has never met a job-creating item she liked or a trade agreement she liked.

Not everything is perfect, but this could open up trillions of dollars of added economic activity at a time of slow growth. We need the jobs in Alberta, we need the jobs in Canada, and we need them now.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There will be six and a half minutes remaining in the time for questions and comments directed toward the hon. member for Edmonton West when the House next resumes debate on the question.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

There are six and a half minutes remaining in questions and comments on the speech by the hon. member for Edmonton West.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member across the way is aware that our government has been very proactive on trade. Whether it has been on issues of pork, canola, official trade agreements, such as with Ukraine, what we are doing today, or the World Trade Organization, trade has been at the forefront of what our government has been pushing forward. We believe that by expanding trade opportunities, we are going to be expanding our middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

Would the member not agree that trade equals good-quality jobs into the future and that this is the type of thing we should continue to pursue in the best way we can?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, obviously.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to my seatmate's speech on CETA. I am concerned that in the coming years, by 2019, we will not see any new free trade agreements come before the House to be debated and ratified. I am concerned that we will stop at CETA. The government is not very ambitious when it comes to finding new markets. The Liberals talk about India and China, and the Minister of International Trade's mandate letter only talks about modernizing two agreements, and just a little about, potentially, Japan.

I would like to ask the member if he could comment on that. Does he share the same concern I have that we will not actually see a single new free trade agreement between now and 2019?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. We just heard the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader talk about the encouragement of trade. We agree that more trade equals better jobs for the middle class and people living in poverty. It helps all Canadians. However, we have not seen a lot of action by the government.

We have seen CETA move forward, which was 99% done under the previous government. We have seen the TPP, which was again mostly brought by the previous government. Obviously, we are having problems with the U.S. right now. However, instead of taking the ball and approaching Japan, New Zealand, and our other allies overseas, the Liberals just backed away from it entirely. We have seen them drop the ball on softwood lumber.

There is no vision put forward by the government. These trade deals take years and years. We do not even see a seed planted for the future. There is no vision, zero for the future.

We are a trading nation. We need to trade more and grow more. We need a lot more action from the government on that front.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to take the opportunity to elaborate, because I have heard him respond to others about his concern that there is no plan from the Liberal government. Could he elaborate, for members on the other side of the House, on what would be a good approach going forward, based on the past record of the Conservative government? I would like to hear his thoughts on that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, going forward, I think the government has to make it very clear that we support trade. We have to be very strong and forthright with the U.S. that trade benefits the U.S. and trade benefits Canada.

We also need to reach out to our allies that are part of the TPP and restart the program. I believe that eventually, the U.S. will come around to a pro-trade pattern and will pursue the TPP as a balance against the burgeoning issue of China. We need to trade more with Japan and our allies overseas that share our same democratic values.

The government needs to make very clear that it supports free trade and be a lot more vocal about it. It needs to work strongly in the U.S. to protect our interests within NAFTA but also make very clear that we support trade with other countries and will go ahead with free trade with our allies, with or without the U.S.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my friend is doing great work representing the people of his riding in the greater Sherwood Park area. I wonder if he could speak more about the current climate we are in internationally. There are a lot of critics of trade, people from different parts of the spectrum who are critical of the very idea of trade.

We know that trade brings economic prosperity. We also know that trade helps bring peace and builds community among nations and also that it flows from the freedom we all expect to buy products and services we want from other countries.

How can Canada make, and what role should Canada play in making, that argument in the kind of international climate we find ourselves in?

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I get the impression the hon. member means, by the greater Sherwood Park area, the city of Edmonton. I will leave that to him when he gets up in a couple of minutes.

The hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be one of the 28 Conservative MPs who are part of the greater Sherwood Park collective. Some people may also have referred to it in the past as Alberta, but now it is the greater Sherwood Park collective.

The member is right on a lot of trade issues. It is affecting Alberta right now. We need to very strongly move forward on our trade initiatives, whether it is CETA or following with other countries. Canada, we know, is very clearly a trading nation. About 60% of our GDP is wrapped up with trade.

I see I am running of time. I spent too much time on the greater Sherwood Park area.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as much as I would love to spend the next 20 minutes clarifying that point, we better get on to discussing the Canada-EU free trade deal. I think this will be my last opportunity in the House to address this important agreement, and even my colleagues are happy about that fact.

This really is a very important trade deal. It is important for Canada's prosperity and it is important for the prosperity of the European Union. It also comes at an important time in terms of the broader international conversations that we are having about trade.

To review the basic facts, this is a trade agreement that could bring a 20% boost in bilateral trade between Canada and the EU, a $12-billion annual increase in Canada's economy. That is the economic equivalent of adding $1,000 to the average Canadian family's income or almost 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy. It is a significant, very direct impact. People watching at home should know that we are talking about $1,000 to the average family's income possibly resulting from the expansion of economic activity that would result from this trade deal. This is a clear benefit in terms of prosperity that flows from this trade deal, but there are other benefits.

For the first part of my speech, before I go on to discuss some of the positives in terms of trade, I want to respond to some of the arguments that I have heard in the House throughout this debate on this particular agreement but also on other agreements. What are people saying against this trade deal and what can or should be said in response to that?

We hear five principal criticisms of trade coming from different parties in the House and other directions as well. We have heard concerns raised about investor-state provisions. We have heard some people say that we should not be signing these big multilateral trade deals and that they would prefer that Canada focus on bilateral trade deals, which is what the NDP is talking about. We have heard people say that there is a risk to jobs from this. We have heard people talk about trade balance. We have also heard in this discussion about fair trade, that trade is fine but it has to be fair. I want to speak to each of these points, which may not be criticisms but arguments that come generally from those who are more critical of trade.

First, on the question of investor-state provisions, the criticism is raised by some people that trade deals involve a process inevitably of adjudication. When a company or an individual feels that the commitments made in a trade deal are not being followed, there is an adjudication process. This allows the critics of trade to come out and say that trade deals allow private companies to sue the government, which is sort of held up as a big red flag.

Let us put this criticism of trade deals in context. We know that a key hallmark of a free society is that governments as well as all of us are bound by law. The law is not simply the means by which the state controls the rest of society; rather, the law is a thing that binds every actor, governmental and non-governmental, within a society. There is a fixed process by which a law is changed, and that process as well must be honoured by the government. This idea that the rule of law structures our life in every way outside of even trade deals has its roots in our very ancient constitutional tradition as well as theories of natural law, that government is bound by law as well.

Even in the absence of trade deals, there is an opportunity for individuals, companies, and civil society groups to bring legal action against the government, to hold the government accountable to the law. That is part of the rule of law. It is central to a good society that government is bound by law. In the context of trade deals, of course, these trade deals impose certain requirements on government.

Governments make commitments to abide by certain provisions with respect to these trade deals. It is necessary, if one is going to have a trade deal that has force, that has meaning, that there be a mechanism by which those who feel they are negatively affected when governments do not follow the provisions of the trade deal can bring forward legal action to challenge the behaviour of governments that are not following through on the commitments that are in these deals.

That speaks to why we have to have some kind of adjudication process as part of trade deals. We have to have an ability for companies, individuals, civil society groups, to bring action against governments if those individuals, companies, civil society groups are negatively impacted by the government's failure to adhere to the provisions of the deal. That is why trade deals have these kinds of provisions that allow the bringing forward of action against governments. It is because governments have to be bound by their commitments in trade deals or elsewhere. Governments, like the rest of us, have to follow the law.

I would understand if some people object and say that they do not like this, that or another provision of a particular trade deal, although I think, on balance, this trade deal is very good. It is one thing to say we do not like specific aspects of a trade deal, but it does not make much sense to me to say we should not have an adjudication process to hold governments up to the standards set by the trade deal. If we are going to have a meaningful trade deal, we have to have some kind of process of adjudication against that deal to ensure that the commitments made in the deal are actually followed through on. That is why these investor-state provisions are important. I think that point needs to be understood and appreciated by some members of the House and elsewhere who have focused their criticisms on this particular aspect of the different trade deals that we have seen here and seen debated elsewhere.

The second criticism we have heard, and we have heard this from the NDP members, is they are willing to support certain bilateral trade deals but have generally been suspicious or critical of trade deals that are undertaken on a more multilateral basis. I know they supported the Canada-Korea free trade deal and they are supportive, at this stage at least, of the Canada-Ukraine free trade deal, but they have made the point, in questions and comments, that these are bilateral trade deals and not multilateral trade deals. I scratch my head when I hear that point in terms of trying to understand what the actual difference is.

Of course, there is the obvious difference that one involves more countries than another but really, philosophically, multilateral trade deals move us faster forward in getting trade access to more countries. They allow us to advance our desire to access more markets and give more economic freedom to Canadians more quickly. The negotiation process can be more elongated and more complex, but there is no fundamental reason to support bilateral trade deals and not multilateral trade deals.

I would also make the point that if we are not keen on multilateral trade deals, effectively we shut out the possibility of trade with certain blocs of countries that have already entered into trading arrangements which preclude any individual country from within that arrangement from making individual bilateral agreements.

Within the European Union, of course, as we are discussing today, an individual country in the EU cannot go out and sign a bilateral trade deal with Canada because the conditions of the union are such that the union as a collective must sign these new trade deals to move forward.

The position of the NDP in accepting bilateral trade deals but not multilateral trade deals is effectively to shut off the possibility of trade with large regional blocs. I would just add that as we see the emergence of more of these regional trade blocs, that position would effectively really limit Canada's ability to expand its economic relationships with other countries. I think we should hope for trade deals that bring in as many countries as possible, that expand the sphere of prosperity and of freedom, and cast that net as wide as we can.

The third criticism we have heard throughout this debate is people say that a trade deal is going to put jobs at risk. Usually it is not phrased like that. They say that in a particular sector we're going to expose jobs to competition, so we're going to lose those jobs.

It, of course, does not follow that when we open up the possibility of exchange and competition we are necessarily going to lose those jobs. We may well create the conditions for improvements in that sector, for the expansion of jobs here, and improvements in technology and other things through competition that is beneficial to consumers.

What is the alternative to open trade? One can understand maybe the allure of protectionism, putting up trade walls and preventing one's industry from needing to compete against other industries, but in the long run, protectionism does not create jobs; it kills jobs, because when one limits the market access of one's industry, investments that might otherwise get made here get made in other places. In the long run, we do not see the new investments in a protectionist environment that would actually create jobs for the future.

On this side of the House, as the Conservative Party, we are thinking not only about the businesses and jobs that exist today, but the businesses and jobs that do not yet exist but could exist under the right conditions. When we move forward with a robust trade agenda, it is with an eye, yes, to benefiting consumers and existing businesses, giving them access to new markets, but also to opening up the opportunity for businesses which do not yet exist to come into existence.

With this trade deal, Canada would be extremely well positioned to encourage the creation of new business. We would have preferential trade access to the United States and the European Union. I might add that we would have an opportunity, if the government proceeds in this direction, to pursue deeper trading relationships with major economies and like-minded democracies within the Asia-Pacific region. We have a real opportunity.

On the other hand, when we open ourselves up to competition through trade, it is important that we do not take steps that undermine the competitiveness of our industry. I worry that the government is doing things that are going to, in fact, undermine our competitiveness, such as the new taxes the Liberals are imposing, the carbon tax, the increase to the payroll tax, the elimination of the small business hiring credit, the effective tax increase on small businesses.

Yes, there is a squeeze on the taxation side coming from the government which is putting our economy at risk and is hurting our competitiveness, but nonetheless, in general terms, we see that opening ourselves up to competition and the benefits that come from exchange will benefit us and create jobs in the long run. The strategy of building up protectionist walls does not encourage investment. It is not a job-creation strategy. Protectionism is a job-killing strategy.

One of the other points we hear from those who are critical of trade is the need to be hypersensitive around the issue of a trade balance, that we cannot be running a trade deficit, that we should always be trying to export more than we import. Let us be very clear about what the objective of trade is. Fundamentally, the objective of trade is to increase the standard of living and quality of life for Canadians.

Some people still think about trade in this kind of 17th century mercantilist economic mode, where it is all about exports over imports. We have heard this criticism, in fact, from the government, saying that we have a trade deficit and that is somehow catastrophic. The reality is that a trade deficit, unlike a budget deficit, is not something that has to be paid off. In any normal economic exchange system, there are going to be times when one imports more than one exports, or vice versa.

Finally, I want to talk about the issue of fair trade. This is a frequent talking point around the trade issue: yes, free trade, but what about fair trade? When governments enter into trade negotiations, they are not themselves determining what goods will be traded. They are not determining the prices or the terms of trade between countries. Rather, they are undertaking negotiations to open up the space for trade to occur between private actors in individual countries. It is up to those private actors, of course, to make trades and exchanges that they regard as being in their own interests. People do not make exchanges if they are not usually beneficial. That is fairly clear in any normal interaction.

In the international trade discussion, people are often asking whether it is fair and who is winning in that trade deal. I made this point before. When I go to the grocery store, who is winning? Is it me or the store? Actually, we are both winning. The store is getting my money and I am getting groceries that I need. Mutually beneficial exchange is not about someone winning or losing; it is about everyone being better off.

Therefore, when governments undertake trade negotiations, they open up the possibility for a mutually beneficial exchange to occur between individuals in the different countries. There might be certain conditions, where in the absence of proper environmental protections or proper labour rights protections, there would be an unfairness that would result from that. However, generally speaking there is no creation of compulsory trade as a result of these agreements, so there is not a need to worry that there would be some unfairness that emerges in trade, for instance, in an agreement between Canada and the EU. What we are doing is giving private individuals and companies the freedom to enter into trading relationships that are beneficial for them, for their customers, and for the people they are exchanging things with.

I hope that for those members of other parties who are listening, this addresses many of the principal criticisms of trade deals that are out there, the criticisms around investor-state provisions, around multilateral versus bilateral trade deals, around jobs, around trade balance, and around questions of fairness.

If I can, in the time I have, I will briefly make some comments about the future of our trade agenda.

I commend the government on moving forward to implement a number of trade initiatives that were begun, and, in the case of this deal, signed by the previous government. It is a credit to the Liberals that they are moving forward with a trade deal that was put on their desk.

On the other hand, we had the trans-Pacific partnership, which was put on their desk, and they dragged their feet and it is still there. Of course, the signals we are getting from the American administration has put a big question mark beside that. In whatever form, it is critical that the government lead on trade in the Asia-Pacific region. There is huge opportunity for Canada to expand its economic activity in the Asia-Pacific. The basic logic of emphasizing our relationships in the Pacific is still very much there. It is important, because we need to make trading agreements with like-minded democratic countries, like Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, countries that share our values, and to use those agreements to set the terms of trade in a way that is consistent with the rule of law in that region. That is an opportunity that we have, and we need to lead and speak clearly about the value of that trade.

We need to work with the Americans to have them continue to engage with freer trade in the Asia-Pacific region as well. I was always a big supporter of the trans-Pacific partnership and will continue to be. In whatever form we move forward, I would encourage the government to not just move forward with some of the agreements that we signed, but to undertake new trade initiatives that reflect new challenges and new realities, and especially to consider that opportunity and need in the context of the Asia-Pacific region.

We know, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, the benefits that come from free trade, and from this deal in particular. Estimates tell us that this could bring in a $12-billion annual increase to Canada's economy. That is the equivalent of adding $1,000 to the average family's income and almost 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy. That involves exposing existing industry to competition. It involves giving consumers the benefit of a much wider degree of trade access, and it creates an opportunity for not one side to win or lose, but for Canada and Europe to prosper and to strengthen ourselves together.

I hope we move forward with this, and I hope we see the continuing development of new trade initiatives that will allow us to achieve shared prosperity with other countries as well.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have indicated and have had the opportunity to emphasize how important trade is to Canada. The member made reference to the whole idea of protecting investors, and that is incorporated into the agreement. It is reciprocal between the EU and Canada, which in essence allows for companies to invest with confidence.

Could the member expand on that point, that if potential investors in the EU are looking at investing a significant amount of resources into Canada, that the design and inclusion of that aspect of CETA is to provide assurances? By doing that, we believe there will be more opportunities for Canada to export goods and to see more investment coming into Canada. Could the member provide some further comments in regard to the benefits of that?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend is quite right to point out that there is a connection between these things. I spoke specifically about investor-state provisions as part of the normal functioning of a rule of law society in which businesses, private individuals, and civil society groups can bring actions against the government when those actions of government do not conform to its commitments as defined in law. However, the member is quite right to point out that there is a connection between that and investor confidence. When there are mechanisms for investors who have been wronged to seek the appropriate review and remediation of that wrong, that obviously gives them a greater confidence and a greater willingness to invest.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was especially interested in the part of the member's speech that dealt with the rule of law. In my mind, when we think about the rule of law, I think there are three basic constituent elements: legality, democracy, and human rights. We know that the bills passed in the House of Commons eventually become law. That is the legality part. Democracy comes in because the House is democratically accountable to the people of Canada; therefore, we have the authority to bring forth laws for the good of the nation. The human rights aspect is that all of our laws are subject to the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

My question centres around the investor-state dispute resolution system, which has now been changed to the investor court system. The language has been watered down a bit, but it still comes to this fundamental philosophical question. If we have some kind of a dispute resolution system, which I would argue does not have any democratic accountability, how does he mesh that with his explanation about the rule of law? Where is that missing key component to the rule of law, the democratic accountability?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting and important question that my friend has asked, but it is important for him to acknowledge that democratic accountability does not preclude the exercise of real power by adjudicative bodies that are not themselves democratic. We do not elect judges, and I do not think that the NDP members support, or have ever supported, the idea of electing judges. That is because they appreciate the fact that democracy takes place in terms of setting law in place. Typically in a rule of law society, there is the adjudication of individual claims that takes place underneath that legal framework, and that adjudication takes place in a context that is more independent.

My point is that there is a continuity between that process as it happens in the context of domestic law and these investor-state type of provisions. You have an adjudication of commitments that have been made by democratic governments, and have been ratified, passed, and supported by democratic legislatures. We have made the commitment, but the enforcement of those commitments is done through independent adjudicative bodies. The member might not like that in this case, but I think he would have to acknowledge that it is consistent with how rule of law systems practise these kinds of things across the board.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I have been asking members on both sides of the House today is on their thoughts about now until 2019. This is one of the last free agreements, which was mostly negotiated by the previous Conservative government and finalized by the current government, but we do not see much new in the agenda. There is not much in the way of a new pulse on where the new markets are going to be and what the new negotiations are going to be.

The previous government left off in some early discussions with Mercosur, a very few countries, but we have not really heard anything. The mandate letter to the Minister of International Trade mentions India and China, and a hopeful statement about Japan, but it is very brief.

I would like to hear from the member whether he shares my concern, which is that we may very well not see a single new free trade agreement brought before the House for consideration and ratification if it is a good free trade agreement. I would like to know if he agrees with me that this is an issue of concern between now and 2019.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the member that if not a lot happens between now and 2019, the Conservatives will certainly resume a robust trade agenda after 2019.

The question of where we should be going next is an important one. Through the work of Brian Mulroney's Conservative government, there was free trade with our partners in North America. Now, thanks to the hard work undertaken by the Harper Conservative government, we are moving forward with trade with Europe.

The next step, and the member alluded to this, is to expand trade with like-minded democracies within Asia. Of course, there is a lot of economic growth happening there and some real opportunities. The Conservative government began the process of seeking free trade with India. Given the strong people-to-people ties that Canada has with India, and the economic opportunities that exist there, this is certainly very important. However, we should pursue multilateral trade arrangements within Asia as well.

The government has talked about seeking bilateral free trade with China, but I would suggest that if we focus on working with like-minded democracies, we have an opportunity to establish the terms of trade along rule of law lines that respect human rights, labour rights, environmental concerns, and other issues, and we can do that through a kind of partnership like the TPP. That would be a good basis on which to explore subsequent trade with China and other powers. However, the first step is to establish partnerships with countries like Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India, the Philippines, and others, with whom we clearly have relatively similar systems of government and ideas about the rule of law and democracy.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan dismissed concerns about the investor-state provisions of CETA by saying that provisions of trade agreements need to be subject to some sort of adjudication. I wonder if he would agree with investor rights being subject to the same dispute resolution process as the rest of the agreement.

Certainly what New Democrats are concerned about is not having an adjudication process, but creating an entirely separate adjudication process just for investor rights, which privileges them over many other rights and considerations.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to hear the member say that he is at least supportive of the principle of adjudication in the context of trade agreements. I do not know if that is the case with all of the critics of these provisions who have raised them. Of course, the specific mechanism for adjudication has to be one that is negotiated in the context of trade agreements, and it has to therefore involve an identified mechanism that is invested with the trust of both countries.

I do not agree at all with the suggestion that this somehow puts other rights on the back burner, especially since this and other trade deals are very much designed to ensure the protection of other kinds of rights. It is important to underline on trade deals that they are not just about looking at the economic dimension, but that there are always discussions of the other important dimensions of life. Trade deals are designed to ensure the protection of those things. Therefore, it is not at all correct to say that other rights are somehow pushed to the side.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise in the House and talk about the Canada-European Union trade agreement, which is one that I have spoken on a number of times. We have the opportunity to stand in the House to speak about Canada's opportunities on the world stage and the promotion of Canada on the world stage. It always brings me back to the opportunities and experiences I had in the promotion of Canada for over 20 years working in aviation and trade. Indeed, it brings back some great memories.

I am going to focus my speech on a couple of different areas. Obviously, we have heard a lot of speeches over this debate and, indeed, on the earlier versions of this agreement. I am going to talk about why Canada has this agreement, and then get into the agreement as it sits today. I also want to talk a little bit beyond the trade agreements, what we need to do, and what the government needs to do to make sure that we capitalize on the opportunities that trade agreements bring.

The question we always have with respect to a trade agreement as we move forward is making sure that it is the right deal for Canadians, and making sure that Canadian jobs are always promoted first and foremost, and are top of mind. I know that for the previous government under Stephen Harper, first and foremost of critical importance was creating an environment that precipitated investment and trade, and also furthered trade. This was what Prime Minister Harper and his strong team of ministers focused on.

Again, we should always be mindful that we give kudos to the hon. colleague, the member for Abbotsford, who moved this agreement to where it is today. As well, we had the former minister of trade, the member for York—Simcoe, as well who did considerable work in moving agreements such as this.

If I remember correctly, our former Conservative government put over 40-plus agreements in place. The reason we got over 40 agreements done and in place is that we had a focused government that understood that Canada first and foremost is indeed a trading nation. We understood that our economy is predicated on the commodities that we produce. One in five Canadian jobs is directly or indirectly linked to trade. Trade allows us to secure and be the drivers of our prosperity. Every billion dollars in exports generates as many as 11,000 new jobs.

The Canada-EU agreement will be one of the largest agreements that we have had since NAFTA. The history of our Canada-EU relations goes back to 1497 when John Cabot landed. He was looking for spices, but instead found fish, cod at the time, and lots of it. Subsequently, a lot of boats from Europe came to get our cod, because Canadians had some of the best north Atlantic cod. It was dried, salted, and shipped over to Europe. This expanded into the fur trade with our first nations and further with the Hudson's Bay Company. We have a long history of trade with Europe.

As I said, earlier, the Canada-Europe trade agreement is a landmark agreement. It has been mentioned in the House that it really is a gold-plated agreement. It sets the standard for agreements.

This agreement connects producers to over 500 million consumers. It connects our producers to the world's largest economy. Indeed, the EU represents 500 million people and an annual economic activity of almost $20 trillion.

The day that this agreement comes into place, it is said that Canada could experience a 20% boost in bilateral trade, and I believe it has been mentioned time and again that we could experience a $12-billion annual increase in our Canadian economy. That is not chump change. That is a lot of money. That is a lot of jobs. That represents over 80,000 new Canadian jobs.

On the day that it comes into force, nearly 100% of all EU tariff lines on non-agricultural products would be duty-free, along with close to 94% of all EU tariff lines on agricultural products.

The Canada-EU agreement would also give Canadian service providers, which employ more than 13.8 million Canadians and account for 70% of Canada's total GDP, the best market access the EU has ever granted to any of its free trade agreement partners.

This agreement would also give Canadian suppliers of goods and services secure preferential access to the world's largest procurement market. The EU's $3.3-trillion government procurement market would provide our industry and our service providers with the most significant new export opportunities that they have seen in decades.

We have talked a lot about what CETA would bring and we have talked a lot about when it comes into force. I always like to bring it back to what it means for my province of British Columbia. I am the first to stand to say how proud I am to be from British Columbia and to be one of the MPs from there. The EU is already B.C.'s fifth-largest export destination and it is our fourth-largest trading partner. British Columbia stands to benefit significantly from the preferential access to the EU market. Once in force, CETA would eliminate tariffs on almost all of B.C.'s exports and provide access to new market opportunities in the EU. The provision of CETA would help erase regulatory barriers, reinforce intellectual property rights, and ensure more transparent rules for market access. B.C. would be positioned to have a competitive advantage over exporters from other countries that do not have a free trade agreement with the EU.

I have said this before, and I will say it again. We have one of the most business-ready and most competitive business environments and supportive climates in B.C. Our province consistently receives AAA credit ratings. We have vast resources, low tax rates, a stable and well-regulated financial system, and a fiscally responsible government that attracts investment from around the world.

Canada used to have that, as well.

In the previous government, we had a government that understood that to be competitive on the world stage, we had to create a business environment, an investment environment, with low taxes, quality jobs, quality tradespeople. Our government understood that.

B.C. is at the commercial crossroads of Asia-Pacific and North America. We are also equidistant, in terms of flights, between Asia and the European markets. Our fish and seafood exporters would benefit from CETA. I have said this before.

The seafood industry has gone through many transitions and, indeed, faces an uncertain future. We are just finishing up our study of the Fisheries Act review. We studied the northern cod. We are seeing that fishery has yet to rebound. We have studied our Atlantic salmon fisheries, as well. We know that our fishing communities on the east coast are hurting, but there are incredible opportunities for them. When CETA comes into force, almost 96% of EU tariff lines for fish and seafood products would be duty-free and on 7%, 100% of the products would be duty-free.

It is hugely important because the EU is the world's largest importer of fish and seafood products. EU tariffs for fish and seafood average 11% and can be as high as 25%. It comes down to a competitive advantage, and Canada has it. Once the deal comes into force, Canada can be even more competitive on the world stage.

I talked a lot about what CETA would do and what it would bring, but I want to focus on getting agreements in place, what that means, and how we go about doing that.

We have strong familial ties with Europe. There is a large European diaspora in Canada making sure we can connect with those Canadians. Getting trade access is about more than just formal agreements. It is not enough to just sign the agreement. We have to make sure we have resources and that we are doing everything in our power to build the capacity to take advantage of these opportunities. Whether it is a strategy that looks at our ports or an airports strategy, the previous Conservative government understood that. We invested in our trade commissioners. We invested in making sure that our air policy was there to support our trade and agreements.

I want to talk a bit about that. As we said, getting the agreements across the finish line is just one thing, but we need to make sure that we get a strategy that leverages all of our advantages, including our geographic advantages at home and abroad. Whether it is our trade commissioners, whether it is making available marketing dollars or export investment dollars, it is always so critically important that there is a holistic program that backs up any trade agreement. Access to markets and trade promotion are futile if we cannot move the goods we produce faster and more efficiently than our competitors.

Our former Conservative government invested $14.5 billion in our gateway program, into our ports, our airports, and our transportation networks. We have a world-class multimodal system that competes with none other. We are well positioned to take advantage of our geographic position. In 2006, under former Prime Minister Harper, we launched the Asia–Pacific gateway program, and in 2007 we started a national policy framework for strategic gateways and corridors. On that, I would like to get into a bit about our gateway system. It is incumbent upon us that we talk about this. Again, signing the agreements is just one part of it. We have to be able to make sure that we can move our goods and move the people faster and more efficiently than others before.

I have spoken about the port of Prince Rupert time and again, the closest marine port to Asia compared to any other western seaport. It allows us the competitive advantage that our goods can arrive one to two days faster than from any other west coast port. As I said before, it means that products from and to North America arrive at their destination quicker, with less fuel and less risk. We also have the fastest and greenest road and rail networks into the U.S. Midwest, running right straight through Canada and into the heartland of the U.S. I mentioned Prince George Airport, my home airport, which has the third-longest runway in Canada. It was an investment that our previous government made so that we can compete on the world stage. That is just in my riding.

Port Metro Vancouver is North America's most diversified port. It trades 75 billion dollars' worth of goods with more than 160 trading economies annually. The port-related activity alone has an economic impact of $9.7 billion a year and continues to grow. These are all great investments that our previous government put in, and again it is about making sure that once they get that agreement in place they can capture those opportunities.

I want to talk again about the gateways. We have three major gateways in Canada. There is the Asia–Pacific gateway. We have the Ontario–Quebec continental gateway that our previous government invested huge amounts of money in. Thanks to CentrePort in Winnipeg and other trade corridors and supply chain logistics investments in marketing, we were able to capture that movement into the U.S. heartlands.

The Atlantic Canada gateway program in 2007 capitalized on many centuries of background in terms of using Atlantic Canada as a springboard into the U.S. for trading.

Our Conservative government understood that investments went beyond just signing an agreement. We looked at investing in our trade corridors. Whether it was the third-largest container port of Halifax or North America's most efficient class 1 rail carrier, double-stacked container service on both the east and west coasts, our government understood that it took more than just signing agreements to allow our consumers and producers to capitalize on them.

Trade is such a complex file. We have to look at many things. We talked about the umbrella, about ensuring we had a bit of strategy, a holistic approach to this. I go back to the agreement done in 2007. Our Conservative government recognized the direction we were moving in with our trade agreements and we recognized where we wanted to go. In December 2009, we signed a comprehensive air transport agreement, which allowed Canadian carriers access into 27 other markets. We reciprocated on that agreement, allowing those member states access to our Canadian market.

Atlantic Canada is situated right on the flight path. One of the very first airports in North America was Gander airport. It gets an incredible amount of traffic from Europe in the trans-Atlantic cargo network, and it is through the investments that our government made. We looked at our air policy to ensure our air cargo policy was where we wanted to go, that our aspirations matched what we were doing with our regulatory and policy framework.

Our government invested in information and technology to ensure Canada was in tune with some of its largest trading partners, whether it was the U.S. to the south of us and our largest trading partner, or the EU. We wanted to be in line with the information and technology of those countries. We wanted to ensure we had a secure supply chain as we moved forward.

I talk a lot about trade gateways and the promotion of Canada, because I was on the front line of promoting Canada. We always ask, why Canada? I had the opportunity to be in Europe this past fall. I boarded a bus with my Canadian pin. A handful of people wanted that pin. People want to trade with Canada. They want to be associated with Canada. Why? We have the rule of law and one of the safest and most secure countries in the world. We have a political system that rivals any.

Up until the last 18 months, for the most part, we had a secure business environment. Canada did not have a large debt, which usually creates political unrest, certainly with investors. We had principled and pragmatic leadership that saw where Canada wanted to go, but we looked at our policies, whether it was our air policy, our regulations, or our framework. We ensured our small and medium-sized enterprises could take that opportunity to invest, expand and see the benefits of trade agreements, whether it was our go global fund that helped with funding and marketing products.

Signing an agreement is just one part of the process. We celebrate and congratulate the government across the way for getting CETA to the finish line, but there are a whole host of things that need to accompany that agreement. Our Conservative government set them up very well. We hope the Liberal government recognizes that, sees this through and continues with some of the programs our government funded. We funded a number of different initiatives because, under Prime Minister Harper, we understood that Canada was a trading nation first and foremost and that Canadian jobs and Canadian prosperity depended on trade.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, trade is going to allow us to export products, which is very important. It is good for the manufacturing sector. In my riding, a lot of research and development is taking place. I have three post-secondary institutions, and I am very proud of the research they are coming up with that ultimately leads to the creation of products and makes Canada sought after by the world in having these products brought to their markets.

The member commented on how the agreement would impact jobs. I would like to hear a little more about that in terms of areas like research and development and how the agreement would lead to job creation for Canadians, which is one thing on which our government has been very focused.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the benefit of trade agreements is our Canadian products and Canadian producers. We have some of the best and brightest, innovative, and technological companies in the world right in Canada. Being able to access new markets, the world's largest economy, is only going to create more jobs.

I will bring it back to the comment I made before about the third grader in my riding who asked what trade agreements did. If that third grader can only manufacture widgets and sell them within his small community of a couple hundred, it is not going to create jobs, and slowly but surely his product is not going to have any more market. If we can open it up to the communities and countries around us, all of a sudden that product can get to all of the largest economies in our world, whether the U.S., the EU, or, I hope, an Asia-Pacific pact, or the TPP. Trade is good. Trade creates jobs and ensures that our best and brightest are showcased on the world stage, and that is so important.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the labour mobility provisions of CETA would allow European companies to bring their own workers into Canada, without having to go through our immigration system. The deal would also allow vessels flagged in ports of convenience, like Malta and Cypress, to operate in Canadian waters, despite atrocious labour standards on board.

I wonder if the member for Cariboo—Prince George shares our concerns about CETA's effective expansion of the temporary foreign worker program.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, coming from the NDP. It is another poke in the hole of something, or a witch hunt on trade. The New Democrats say that they are standing up for Canadians, but they will find every excuse to go against a trade agreement. The bottom line is that in uncertain times, as we are seeing with our largest trading partner south of the border, we need to ensure we are not putting all of our eggs in one basket. That is exactly what CETA will bring.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's economic interests in Europe are twofold. A prosperous Europe contributes to global prosperity and CETA represents a wonderful opening to a market of more than 500 million people.

Many of the remarks from our NDP colleagues focus on the uncertain voices that we hear from some quarters of the European Union, but they have very little to say about the enthusiasm from the vast majority of the EU membership, particularly in eastern Europe, where Latvia, for example, has praised CETA as the most progressive trade agreement ever negotiated by the EU.

Could my colleague speak to the fact that perhaps all members of the House should be a little less restrained and voice their enthusiasm, as our new impending European trade partners are so enthusiastically voicing their enthusiasm for CETA?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we need to have a principled look at trade agreements. It is always important to look at the details of trade agreements. I mentioned in my speech that the Canada-EU relationship went back centuries. We have strong familial ties. In Canada, we have a large European diaspora. The agreement will not only connect families and grow our relations together, but also, as the hon. colleague mentioned, help those countries that are looking for other markets, or are helping other markets to boost their own economy as well. Trade agreements are good. Reciprocal trade agreements are even better, ensuring our agreement has benefits flowing on each side. I think we will only see benefits coming from this.

As my hon. colleague mentioned, Latvia has said this is one of the best agreements it has seen in decades. While we do have some naysayers in the House, I think all members of Parliament will agree that given the uncertain times south of the border and the increasing protectionist rhetoric, everything we can do to create new opportunities for Canadians and Canadian producers is something we should all celebrate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we have had a great deal of debate over the last while on the benefits of the CETA. One thing that needs to be emphasized, and maybe the member could also comment on this, is that these agreements do not happen overnight. Whether it is our current minister, the former minister, or the minister responsible from the Conservative government, an incredibly intelligent, articulate, dedicated group of civil servants has negotiated on our behalf. We need to recognize that Canada as a nation has some incredible levels of expertise that are brought to the table to ensure we will do well under these agreements.

I listened to many of the comments of the members of the NDP. They have raised issues, and there will always be some. However, the net benefit for CETA is overwhelmingly positive from my perspective. I want to extend congratulations to all of those who have been involved in making this agreement possible. Maybe the member may want to make similar comments.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, maybe we should give credit where credit is due. We have an incredible group at Global Affairs Canada that had 10 years of great policy framework and some great investments in ports, airports, transportation, our gateway programs, also in terms of our trade commissioner programs at home and abroad, and our export marketing programs, whether it was go global, or Canexport, and our policy framework.

With respect to our Global Affairs group, Canada has some of the best people at the table. They were led by a strong member, the hon. colleague for Abbotsford. It is important to do everything we can do to ensure we celebrate where we are going, ensuring we give kudos where it is due. However, I would agree with my hon. colleague that we should be celebrating our agreements and celebrating those who get it across the line.

I know there was a considerable amount of work, effort and investment from the previous government and as well as former prime minister Stephen Harper. He had the foresight to set Canada up not only in our investments in our gateway program but also in our marketing and policy framework, moving that forward and subsequently complementing any trade agreement we move forward.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, Canadian Heritage; the hon. member for Provencher, Taxation.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Drummond.

My ears were burning during the speech of my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, because he spoke about members of the House objecting to CETA based on the investor-state provisions. Having given several speeches to that effect, I thought it was a good opportunity to engage with the arguments that he brought forward.

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan essentially made two arguments as to why investor-state provisions are okay. He said that we need to have some sort of adjudication of the provisions of trade agreements. He also said that we live in a society with rule of law, where individuals and businesses can sue the government, can take the government to court. At some level I actually agree with both of those statements, but I do not think either one of them supports the kind of investor-state provisions that we see in CETA and a number of other trade deals.

If we talk about the need to have some sort of adjudication process to enforce the provisions in trade agreements, that is very true. Almost all provisions of CETA are subject to a government-to-government dispute resolution system, and it would be entirely reasonable to have the investment provisions subject to that same type of dispute resolution where, if investors felt that their rights had been breached, they would convince the government they had a legitimate case, and the government would bring that case forward. That is how every other aspect of the deal works.

What is objectionable about the investor-state provisions is they set up an entirely separate process of dispute resolution just for investors. They set up an entirely separate tribunal process that is available only to financiers and property owners, not other parties that might have concerns or complaints or issues under the agreement. What this leads to is a lot of frivolous cases being brought forward under investor-state provisions, because there is no need for investors to even convince their own government that they have a reasonable case that is worth bringing forward. They can bring forward a case to kind of try their luck before the tribunal. They can bring forward a case just to harass a foreign government and try to push back on its democratic laws, regulations, and policies. The problem is not with having some sort of enforcement process; the problem is with setting up this entirely separate and much more powerful enforcement process that is available only to investors.

The next argument we heard from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan was about the rule of law and how, in our current society, individuals and businesses can already take the government to court. Exactly, so why is it that we need to set up this entirely separate process for investment disputes under this agreement? There are functioning court systems in both Canada and the European Union. I think members would agree that both jurisdictions have legitimate judiciaries. Therefore, how does the existence of rule of law justify creating some sort of entirely separate process?

The original justification for investor-state provisions in NAFTA was that American and Canadian investors were suspicious of the Mexican judicial system and did not have confidence in the Mexican courts. Perhaps that was fair enough, but I really do not see how we would have the same sort of doubts or lack of confidence in the European judicial system. We really have not heard an answer as to why we need this special set of investor-state provisions in CETA.

To illustrate what I am saying about frivolous cases coming forward when we empower investors to directly bring these complaints without even having to clear them through their own governments, it is worth reviewing some of the obnoxious chapter 11 cases that have come forward under NAFTA.

We have the Ethyl Corporation case, where an American company was selling a gasoline additive that had actually already been banned in the United States. The Canadian government tried to ban it as well and Ethyl successfully challenged the Canadian government under NAFTA for lost profits, got $13 million U.S., and had the Canadian government repeal that ban.

There was the AbitibiBowater case where that company shut down its last pulp and paper mill in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The provincial government reclaimed water rights that it had given to AbitibiBowater to operate the mills, but then the company challenged Canada under NAFTA for the loss of its water rights, which it was no longer even using for the purpose they were intended. Well, the previous Conservative government paid AbitibiBowater $130 million to withdraw that NAFTA chapter 11 claim.

We have the current case of Lone Pine Resources. Like AbitibiBowater, it is basically a Canadian company that has registered itself in the United States. It has launched a challenge under NAFTA over a ban on fracking in the province of Quebec depriving it of potential business opportunities. It is claiming some $250 million from our country.

Members can see that these investor-state provisions make it very easy for investors to come forward with almost frivolous cases just to see if they can get a favourable decision, just to sort of intimidate governments into paying them off. We do not want to replicate and amplify this under CETA.

Finally, I would point out that these investor-state provisions are actually having a pernicious effect on domestic politics in our own country. We are starting to see this in the Conservative leadership race where two of the contenders, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the member for Beauce, are proposing to entrench private property rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Let us consider the arguments that the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston made in endorsing this radical libertarian idea. He said:

The lack of constitutional protection for the private property rights of Canadians means that the rights of Canadians can be treated as second-class under NAFTA. Canadians deserve the same property rights that foreign companies enjoy in Canada....

We see that the presence of these investor-state provisions in free trade agreements is causing this proposal to entrench property rights in the Constitution. Let us consider some of the consequences of that. We have heard from the Conservatives a lot of rhetoric in favour of pipelines, but the reality is that the construction of pipelines, railroads, or highways depends almost all the time on the government expropriating some of the land along the route. If every single landowner along the route had a constitutionally enshrined veto, no pipelines, railroads, or highways would ever get built. Therefore, I would encourage the Conservatives to think through the implications of enshrining property rights in the Constitution before they get too excited about the idea, and before their leadership candidates trip over each other too much in trying to be the most libertarian.

We have seen that the investor-state provisions of free trade agreements, including CETA, are not necessary, given that the agreements have a much more sensible government-to-government dispute resolution process already, and given that Canada and Europe already have functioning court systems. There have been many cautionary examples under NAFTA of frivolous cases coming forward with the Canadian government having to pay outrageous amounts of money based on very strange claims. Finally, we see that these investor-state provisions are having a corrupting influence on the political philosophy of our official opposition and are leading the Conservatives down this path of extreme libertarian ideas.

For all of those reasons, I am pleased to speak and vote against this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of years back when we were debating the Jordan, Panama, and other trade agreements, I never heard that particular argument coming from the New Democrats. I suspect it does not really matter what is in this agreement and it is the NDP's full intention to vote against CETA. There is no appeasing the NDP on this agreement.

New Democrats just do not seem to understand the importance of trade to Canada. Canada is a trading nation. We are very dependent on being able to get our products and services to market. That is what creates the tens of thousands of jobs for Canada's middle class. There is so much potential there that could be realized. Yes, New Democrats voted for the Ukraine trade agreement, and we appreciate that, but I would suggest that was more political, possibly based on our heritage communities here in Canada.

Given the member's comments in regard to the free trade agreement with the United States, am I to be left with the impression that the NDP would vote against NAFTA if it was before us today? If we were to vote on NAFTA today, how would the NDP vote? If we based it on the member's speech, it would be no. Is that what people are left to believe?

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Winnipeg North may be aware, the current American President is proposing a renegotiation of NAFTA, and the NDP has been very clear about the fact that in that renegotiation, our priority should be to remove chapter 11, the investor-state provisions of NAFTA. We also think it would make a lot of sense to remove the proportionality clause from NAFTA, given that it puts real limits on Canada's ability to decide where it would like to export our energy resources.

We believe there are some positive aspects of NAFTA. We also believe there are some aspects that could be improved.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend bringing attention to the great work the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is doing. I know he is excited about the implications in his own riding of having a leader just down the road.

I would like to respond to his points about property rights. I do not think Canadians I talked to would consider it a radical idea that we have constitutional protection for property rights. Of course, he knows it is subject to section 1 of the charter. I think most Canadians would be surprised to know that we do not already have constitutional protection for property rights.

He talked about investors as being financiers and property owners. Of course, he should include in that investor category union pension funds as well, that are protected by these provisions.

He asked in his speech about this whole possibility of frivolous litigation, but the reality is, that could exist in any context. It is important that we have an adjudication process. He recognizes the need for an adjudication process, yet he somehow thinks that a state-to-state process, which does not give individual investors any standing, or a process that would involve adjudication solely on the basis of domestic law as opposed to on the basis of the trade agreement, are sufficient. He should be able to see that none of these things is actually sufficient for what these provisions are supposed to do, which is to allow investors the opportunity to directly, themselves, raise issues in which governments violate trade agreements. That seems to me to be a basic fairness mechanism. Whether it is financiers, business owners, or union pension funds, surely they should have the right to seek some kind of domestic remedy, regardless of what their own domestic government thinks, if rights that are supposed to be afforded to them are not protected.

However, if he does not believe in property rights, maybe that actually explains the logic behind it. I would be curious for his response.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I do not believe in the constitutional entrenchment of property rights. As I pointed out in my speech, the construction of infrastructure, whether it be pipelines, railroads, or highways, typically requires the expropriation of some land. Giving a veto power to every private landowner along the route would result in no such infrastructure being built.

The argument suggested by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is that these property rights would be subject to section 1 of the charter. A judge could decide that an expropriation was a fair and reasonable limit on those property rights, but the Conservatives really want to hang their position of entrenching property rights in the charter on their faith in activist judges.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to talk about Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states and to provide for certain other measures.

The NDP and I are in a very bad spot right now. The Liberals have put us in a very awkward position because we are completely in favour of a free trade agreement with Europe. The Liberals need to understand that. Unfortunately, the agreement was negotiated by Stephen Harper's Conservatives in total secrecy with no proper consultation whatsoever. We did not even have the document so that we could do the work properly. The agreement sacrifices several sectors of our economy. What that means for Drummond is that dairy and cheese producers are paying the price.

That is why we cannot support this agreement as it stands. Had it been done properly and wisely, had they negotiated by the book, we could have ended up with a deal that would have garnered the support of all parties in the House. Unfortunately, because of the way it was done, we cannot support it, so we have to vote against this bill.

The bill includes all the changes needed to implement the agreement right away, including the investor-court system provisions that are going to change, as the European states have already clearly indicated. Even if we accept the agreement, European countries will probably oppose that particular part.

The NDP has been calling for improved trade with Europe for some time now in order to diversify our markets. Many serious concerns and unanswered questions remain regarding the proposed agreement, as I mentioned.

Trade with Europe is too important for us to wind up with a botched deal, one that was negotiated by the Conservatives, based on Conservative concerns, and signed hastily by the Liberals without taking any time to properly review the deal and consult Canadians in all sectors of the economy. Some sectors have been completely ignored. I am thinking of the dairy and cheese producers in my riding of Drummond, for instance. I will expand on this a little later on.

With respect to dairy and cheese producers, it is important to point out that the Liberals are not offering adequate compensation. In fact, this agreement is going to result in a huge loss for our dairy producers. As the member representing the people of Drummond, a riding that is home to many dairy and cheese producers, I cannot support the agreement, which is not enough for our dairy producers.

The Liberals' plan to compensate dairy producers is not really a compensation plan. It is a program that is being added and that is totally inadequate. It consists of $250 million over five years for dairy producers and $100 million for cheese producers. However, we do not really know how this program will work. What will be the exact terms and conditions? Will the people of Drummond and Quebec be eligible? Will small cheese producers be eligible? It is not really clear.

I met with some dairy and cheese producers this summer. The members for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and Berthier—Maskinongé accompanied me on a tour of the communities in my riding. We met with dairy producers. They were very angry with the Liberal government, not just because of the Canada-Europe agreement on the horizon, but also because of its failure to take action in the dairy sector, specifically with regard to the massive entry of diafiltered milk, which is completely illegal.

Today, while the Prime Minister is meeting with the President of the United States, we are still faced with a problem that began over a year ago: the issue of diafiltered milk. The Liberal government said that it would resolve this problem during its first three months in office. However, those three months ended a long time ago. Unfortunately, despite all the pressure dairy farmers and the NDP have been exerting to make them change their minds, the Liberals are still sitting back and doing nothing. Meanwhile, there is a fairly simple solution to this problem: apply the same definition to this product at the border as when it is used in dairy products. Milk is milk, but diafiltered milk products are not milk. They should never be used to produce cheese.

The government's inaction is costing dairy farmers a lot of money. The fact that the government is also signing a bad trade agreement with Europe without compensating producers is unacceptable.

It is important to remember that we are talking about 17,700 additional tonnes of cheese coming to Canada under the Canada-Europe free trade agreement. That is about the equivalent of all the cheese produced in Nova Scotia, for example. Cheese producers are being quickly and heavily penalized.

I will read a quote by Daniel Gosselin and Suzanne Dufresne, owners of the Fromagerie Au gré des champs:

People do not realize what it means to have 17,700 tonnes of European cheese arriving in Canada. It is simple: it is like having 1,000 cheesemakers our size suddenly open up in Quebec.

Small and medium-sized cheesemakers are quite worried, and rightly so, about the impending arrival of 17,700 tonnes of cheese in our market without any real compensation for them, without any real support.

I had the opportunity to visit a number of cheese factories in my region a few months ago. For those who have the good fortune of passing through the beautiful Saint-Guillaume area, the fresh cheese from the Fromagerie Saint-Guillaume is among the best. There is a cheese that the locals like to call “Le p'tit frais”, not just because they are proud of it, but because it is made fresh daily. You can even find Le p'tit frais de Saint-Guillaume here in Ottawa. It is utterly delightful.

We also have the Lemaire cheese factory. It too makes an excellent cheese curd often used in poutine. As everyone knows, the Drummond region is the birthplace of poutine. That is where it was invented. In fact, the greater Drummond region hosts the annual poutine festival.

Anyone who visits the region should try the Lemaire cheese factory's poutine.

Lastly, I want to mention Agropur's five-year-old Grand Cheddar, which is made in Notre-Dame-du-Bon-Conseil and was first in its class at the Sélection Caseus competition. My region needs support for its dairy industry, and it needs protection for its cheese industry. This is extremely important.

We cannot allow our government to abandon our dairy and cheese producers or to ignore the diafiltered milk file. As if that were not enough, the government wants to saddle them with the negative outcomes of a free trade agreement with Europe without providing compensation or a plan to help our cheese producers, who have been asking for import quotas for a long time. There is no news on that front.

I could go on about other issues, such as the legal action the government is opening itself up to, but I will stop there because I see that my time is up.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, whenever we have a trade agreement, there is going to be a need to look at different industries and how it might impact them. Let me give the House an example. The member across the way talked about the cheese industry. Manitoba has Bothwell Cheese. I argued the other day that it makes the best cheese in the world. I hope this company will continue to grow and prosper, even with this agreement. Am I concerned? Sure, I am concerned. We also have a fantastic pork industry in Manitoba. Our pork industry will benefit immensely from this agreement.

There are always going to be areas of concern, but the principle is what we are moving forward on, and that is the promotion of international trade, something on which Canada is dependent.

Would the member across the way not agree that no matter what the agreement, even the Ukraine agreement we unanimously passed just the other day, there are always going to be areas of concern related to manufacturing industries or service industries and so forth? Due diligence will ensure that we as MPs do what we can to protect our industries.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would respond to my colleague by saying that this deal was signed by Stephen Harper's Conservatives for the benefit of Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

The Liberals picked up where the Conservatives left off and introduced it quickly on October 31. They were practically ready to vote in favour of it the very next day. We need to take some time to read it and study the details. We proposed 11 amendments at our committee meetings, and I would like to commend my colleague from Essex for her hard work there.

There is no rush, because we have five years to finalize the details of the Canada-Europe agreement. Let us take the time to do things right, for this is a very important agreement, especially for the NDP. We want a good deal with Europe. We want a deal that works, one that will be in place for the long term, one that is beneficial for Canadians, for the people of Drummond, and for our dairy and cheese producers.

We are still waiting for you to resolve the issue of diafiltered milk, and we are tired of waiting.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I am sure the hon. member was not asking me to resolve the issue, but rather the member for Winnipeg North.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in my remarks earlier, I talked about being concerned about present businesses and present jobs but also about being interested in creating the conditions for future investment, and in that context, being concerned about jobs and businesses that do not yet exist but that could exist under the right conditions. Protectionist barriers do not create a climate in which people want to invest, because if they make investments in Canada, they will not have access to a wider array of markets.

Would the member not agree that one of the important features and advantages of the kind of trade access Canada has been pursuing is that we are encouraging not just the continuation of future business but new investments in this country? Exporters will know that they will have access to a great deal of the world's market by basing themselves in Canada, access they would not have in other countries. Is that not an important advantage of this trade deal?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for directing my comments to you. I was wrong.

The Canada-Europe agreement is extremely important even for my region of Drummond. We need to develop new markets. We want an agreement with Europe, but a good agreement that will respect the environment and workers' health and rights. We are not so sure that will happen under the current agreement. There might be lawsuits.

In my riding, Drummond, people are very concerned about hydraulic fracturing and shale gas. Almost everyone in my riding has voiced their disapproval of hydraulic fracturing in their riding and in the entire St. Lawrence River sector. Accordingly, the Government of Quebec has put a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in this sector because of the agricultural land and the protected lands in the area.

A suit was filed as a result of bad agreements and that is why we want a better agreement.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on the Canada-EU free trade agreement.

However, I would like to start off my discussion by recognizing that today is Alberta Oil and Gas Celebration Day. We are celebrating the 70th anniversary this year of the Leduc No. 1, which was one of the first oil wells discovered in Alberta, and the economic prosperity that has come from the oil and gas industry in Alberta since that time. I know there are big celebrations today. Members of my caucus are speaking at events happening there as well. I just thought I would bring that to the attention of the House today.

I would like to congratulate all those who have worked very hard on the CETA deal over the last 10 years. I know that it has been a lot of hard work. The member for York—Simcoe has worked hard on this. The member for Abbotsford has worked hard. I would like to congratulate the current government for pushing this over the finish line. This will have significant impacts on Canada in terms of prosperity for everyone.

We have talked a lot about the expanded market and things like that, but one of the things I would like to talk a bit about is the back and forth that happens with trade agreements.

My riding is a large rural riding in northern Alberta. We are mostly invested in the primary industries, such as logging, agriculture, oil and gas exploration, and a lot of spinoff comes from that. However, one of the things we import a lot of is the equipment that we need. I know that the agricultural industry in my riding is particularly looking forward to a lot of the state-of-the-art technology that the agriculture sector in Europe has and that we can speedily be importing into Canada.

I know there is a burgeoning hemp industry in Alberta. New strains are being developed that grow well in the colder climate we have in northern Alberta. There are big opportunities with this as well, in terms of the fibre that comes out of the hemp plant. Erosion prevention is one of the things that they use this for.

However, we are limited in the equipment used to plant, cultivate, and harvest this plant. They are looking forward to bringing equipment from the Netherlands in particular, which has worked very hard on this. I have been engaged with a number of farmers in my riding who are saying they are excited about this deal, as this will lower their equipment costs, which will only make that particular crop more profitable.

My home community was a pork-producing powerhouse in the early 1990s. Since then, we have watched the market essentially evaporate. There are many white elephant pork barns in my neighbourhood sitting empty that have not been used over the last number of years. This has the opportunity to revive that industry and bring it back.

Since the early 1990s, we have not been able to regain enough of the pork industry to produce our own pork. In fact, Canada imports pork now. It would be great if we could get a market so we could reinvigorate the pork industry and see our profits return on that particular commodity.

I know that a lot of farmers diversified. They were growing grain crops and had pork on the side. If the price was not there in the grain crops, they fed it to their pigs and made their money through the pigs. If the price was there for the crops, they would reduce the pork output. That was a great ability to diversify. We have lost that to some degree. They have diversified now more into the different types of crops that they grow rather than diversifying between two different areas within the agriculture sector.

The agriculture sector in particular is very much looking forward, not only to the new market they are going to get but to the new equipment they will be able to bring over and begin to use, and some of the techniques. The interplay between Europe and Canada will be helpful in bringing some of the techniques across the ocean.

These are just the benefits for Canada. However, one other thing we should talk about is how this would benefit the EU. I am a big advocate of prosperity. All people should be able to improve their station in life, and free trade is the best way to make life better for everyone.

The greatest discovery of the 20th century is probably the development of hydrocarbons as a form of energy. I know that the combination of petroleum products and farming techniques regarding fertilizer, but specifically the tractor, revolutionized the way that people farmed. It brought commercial-scale farming to what currently exists, and that has allowed us to feed the world a couple of times over now.

We need to ensure that the products we produce make it to those who need them. That is the biggest issue with free trade, that the products being produced can make it to the people who need them. In other places in the world, heating in the winter is a big priority. The natural gas produced in Canada has the potential for a large market in eastern Europe. It is not only the natural gas, but the technologies that have been developed in Canada over the last 100 years that have improved agriculture, hydrocarbon production, the way forests are managed, and things like that. That technology can be harnessed by eastern European countries to shift their dependence on natural gas from Russia.

Russia currently holds 31% of the EU's oil and gas imports. People I have spoken with have said that whenever Russia feels slighted by eastern European countries, it turns the natural gas off and people start to freeze. I feel that with this agreement, we will be able to export technology and products that will make people's lives better, shift their dependency from Russia, and make it so that we provide freedom and prosperity around the world. That is number one. Free markets bring freedom is the point that I am trying to make.

The natural gas and oil and gas industries have been a great source of prosperity for northern Alberta, and come mostly from the fact that there are a large number of people employed in it. As I understand it, there is a lot of opportunity in Europe to bring technologies from northern Alberta to the eastern bloc countries, specifically the process known as hydraulic fracturing. There is a lot of shale gas in Europe.

In the Netherlands, where my grandparents are from, there is a lot hydraulic fracturing and drilling there. Holland has managed to become a significant contributor to the EU's natural gas game. If that technology goes to other places in Europe, there is a big opportunity for companies that operate here in Canada to export not only their products but their technologies, manpower, and that kind of thing.

I want to shift to some things that have been brought up here today. In particular, I would like to talk about the investor-state legal issue that members of the NDP brought up. This, to me, seems fairly straightforward, in that investors want stability. They want to know that if they are going to invest in a country, whatever it may be, the laws of the land are not going to change tomorrow and their investment dry up. For example, there is a gentleman in my riding who came from the U.K. in the early 1970s and built a nail factory in southern Alberta. He worked really hard to develop this nail factory.

He saw all the wooden houses that we have in northern Alberta and figured there must be a large market for that, but then was forced to compete with companies from eastern Canada. They were given subsidies on the transportation of their nails, which he was not given. Therefore, he said to just make it a level playing field to allow him to compete and he would be able to sell his product in Alberta as well. He ran that nail factory for a number of years, and then he retired from that and he has gone on since to become an advocate for free markets and free enterprise. I meet with him from time to time in my riding office.

He was initially concerned about this investor-state legal framework that he had heard about in CETA. I said this would be the same as if he built a nail factory in a new country and the day he opened his nail factory, after investing $1 million in building it, that country's government outlawed making nails. I know this is a little facetious. I said that he would then be able to go to that government and say that since it had just outlawed making nails and he had just spent millions of dollars building his nail factory, could the government please reimburse him for the expense of building the nail factory.

That is essentially what this piece of the deal means. If people make an investment in a country based on the current laws of the land, but the law changes and their complete business model fails because of the law change, they can therefore sue the government.

My colleague from the NDP has mentioned this a number of times, but he seems to only think of it in terms of an investment that is coming here to Canada, which I would say is a positive thing. If people are willing to invest in Canada, it is because they see Canada as a place where they can come and make money, a place where they see that the money they invest is not going to disappear. They see the security and stability of our country and they say, “This is a good place to invest.” For us here in Canada, if we go and invest in other countries to make money there and bring the money that we make back home, it would give us stability as well. We can say that we intended to build a nail factory in Ukraine and if the Ukrainians change the law to outlaw the building of nails, at least we could get our investment back and invest in a different country or bring that investment back home. Therefore, that is a very important part of this.

It is just an interesting place to be with my NDP colleague talking about free trade in particular. It seems that the New Democrats are always advocating for open borders when it comes to people, and yet never advocating for open borders when it comes to things. I know that there is always a bit of minutiae around these things. Everyone wants free trade, but not total free trade; and everyone wants open borders, but not total open borders. I expect them to respond to this and maybe clarify some of those things.

Regarding cereal crops in northern Alberta, I had the canola growers in my office a while back and I was bragging to them that I thought my riding was the largest canola-producing riding in all of Canada. They would not confirm that to me, but they did say that the largest canola-producing riding in all of Canada was in northern Alberta. That is one of three ridings, mine being one of them so I will take it. I think that I am, but they would not confirm it for me. The “can” part of the word canola is because it is a Canadian invention. It is something that we now export around the world. The new CETA would give us a new market for canola and we would be very excited to see where all that goes.

When it comes to exporting our products to other parts of the world, it is incredible to see some of the basic products that we export around the world and then to see what is done with them. One of the big advantages of new markets is that we get fresh eyes on a product with new ideas that come with it. A lot of times, we see a product that has been used in one particular way for a very long time and it enters a new market and gets used in completely new methods that we have never seen before.

I am really excited to see the interplay between the European Union and Canada and what kinds of new things come from that. One of the big areas where we will see job growth and innovation is with some of the new things that will come out of this new free trade agreement.

Another area our NDP colleagues have repeatedly addressed is that they believe that medication costs will go up significantly if we enter into CETA. However, we have people on record in this country saying that the opposite is true.

Phil Upshall, the executive director of the Mood Disorders Society of Canada, applauds CETA, saying, “CETA will ensure continued innovation in medicines and improve the health of all Canadians, including those with mental illness”.

Again, that is an example of the new ideas I am quite excited about that would come with our relationship with the EU. When we have ease of transporting people and things across borders, we also get an intermixing of ideas, which allows us to look at things in new ways, get new perspectives on things, and come up with new solutions, or the solution, for some of the greatest problems in the world.

One of the greatest things that could from the CETA deal would be for us to cure cancer. That would be amazing. Some countries in the EU are cutting-edge when it comes to medical research. Right in our own province of Alberta, the University of Alberta is world renowned when it comes to health research. The interplay that could happen between the EU and Canada is something I am really looking forward to.

In my last few minutes, I would like to talk a little bit about the vision going forward.

I know that trade deals take a long time. From speaking with the member for York—Simcoe, I know that when he was the trade minister, he had already initiated some of the talks that started CETA, the TPP, and things like that. Now there has been significant movement on CETA. We are still looking forward to signing and ratifying the TPP, but we are wondering what the next moves will be. Are we continuing to move forward with plans to set up free trade agreements with other countries around the world?

Japan is part of the TPP, but it would be interesting to see if we have to strike out on a separate deal with them as well. Israel, with the innovation and technology that comes out of that country, would be a great country to have an agreement with. Are we moving on that? India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. It would stand to benefit greatly from some of the technologies we have here. I wonder if that is the direction we are going.

I know that it is a lot of hard work and something that is not for the faint of heart, but I wish to persuade the government to show us that it is advocating for these things and working hard on them to ensure that we get the next generation of free trade deals in the hopper, so to speak, because we know how much work and time they take to make happen.

It has been my pleasure to stand and speak today about the CETA free trade deal. I want to affirm once more that I think free trade has the opportunity to solve a lot of the problems in the world. With free trade comes freedom. Hopefully, through free trade deals, we can solve some of the greatest problems that we as humanity face. I see this as the big opportunity before us.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to pick up on the member's point in regards to what other kinds of deals might potentially be out and about. The Prime Minister has talked about Canada's diversity being possibly our greatest strength. The member made reference to India. Whether it is a reflection from within this chamber or a reflection of all Canadians, there is a strong link between our two countries in good part because of how we are enriched by the Indo-Canadian community.

I could say the same thing with regards to the Philippines. The Philippines is a beautiful country and it is Canada's number one source of immigrants. I had the opportunity to visit the Philippines in January where I talked about trade.

There are a lot of ideas out there. Canada is a diverse country and the opportunities are there but it takes time to develop those ideas and move them forward. Many agreements, the Korean agreement being one, were started under previous administrations. CETA was started under the previous administration. It takes time to get these things together.

I wonder if the member could talk about the benefits of Canada's diversity and how it enables us more than many other countries to get the types of agreements that will lead to trade, which all Canadians benefit from.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, probably more than anything I would just confirm that is exactly the case. I come from Dutch heritage. I do not know whether Canada had a free trade agreement with the Netherlands or not but we did a lot of trade back home. I am a second-generation Canadian but I still have a lot of connections with the Netherlands. Trade with Canada was easy because the culture was the same. Both countries liked the same kinds of foods. We in the Netherlands wanted to have some of the classic foods back, one of them being the salty candies that we like. We call them droppies. Most Canadians think they taste awful but for some reason Dutch people really like them. Just importing Dutch candy into Canada was a small industry all on its own.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize my colleague's efforts to draw an analogy for why investor-state agreements are useful. He only criticized the NDP for its opposition. I guarantee the hon. member that I oppose investor-state agreements more. I have never voted for them at all and unfortunately my colleagues in the NDP caucus have done so. My colleague can take that with a grain of salt.

My concern is this. My colleague's nail factory analogy would be clear if it were this example. Let us say a nail factory is opened in a foreign country and the government of that country changes its minimum wage standards. It has nothing to do with the factory. It is not discriminatory. In a democratic society, if a government changes the wage standards or it changes the requirements for a company to pick up its own waste, then that is enough under the dispute history of investor-state agreements for a foreign corporation to have the right to bring an arbitration suit against the government. A domestic corporation would not have that right. That right is exclusive to foreign corporations. The litany of cases that are like this are not in any way categorized by discriminating against a foreign investor or being reckless or discriminatory. They are normal decisions of public policy that foreign corporations will have a right to seek arbitration relief in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that sounds like a problem of having too many lawyers hanging around looking for something to do. I will state for the record that I am not a lawyer. I am an automotive mechanic.

My analogy is probably more complicated than I initially anticipated. To my colleague's analogy of changing the minimum wage rate, I would like the free market to set the wage rates. If government did not interfere with the wage rate, we would see free trade and we would see wages being reflected differently in different countries. I would like the wages of everybody to go up. If there was an opportunity to make more money in an area where the labour rate was cheaper, more companies would move there, investment in that country would typically go up, and the wage rate would go up. The wage advantage would disappear in that particular country. There is some give and take on that.

The member and I probably agree that when we have free trade agreements with other countries we would like the labour standards and the environmental standards to be the same as ours so that we would be on a level playing field. I am sure my colleague would agree with me on that.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during part of the member's speech, he was raising some of the concerns that we in the NDP have about the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. I should explain to him why we have that position. The increased patent protections granted to brand name pharmaceuticals are going to go way beyond Canada's existing obligations. We have evidence of this from the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association. It conducted a study and showed that, if adopted, the proposals would delay the introduction of new generic medicines in Canada by an average of three and a half years. The cost of this delay to pharmaceutical payers was estimated at $2.8 billion annually, based on generic prices in 2010.

Therefore, my question for the member is this. If he disagrees with that particular statement, and may I remind him, this is coming from the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association, which knows its stuff, can he offer evidence to the contrary?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily disagree or agree with that statement. If they are making it, that is fine. My basic assumption with free trade agreements is that we would probably increase the options available. If it takes longer to get the generic drug, that is probably the case. However, if we have an integration between the two areas of trade, Canada and the EU, we may increase the options for different kinds of drugs that are not necessarily available in Canada right now but may be available after the free trade agreement comes into force. We may not even have to use the particular drug that he was talking about before, as now we have a different one.

The other thing that comes into play, and I have mentioned this on and on, is the interplay between people, ideas, and things that would happen between our markets as we go to more and more free trade. We may actually find solutions to the problems that these drugs are trying to solve. We may make a particular drug obsolete and go on to a new one because of the interplay between the people, things, and ideas.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made a very good point about the kinds of problems we can solve if we work together across international lines. Free trade creates opportunities for interstate commerce, which can move human society forward in ways that are outside of just creating jobs. It could actually solve real problems that play off strengths of technologies that may exist in different places. I wonder if my friend could comment and elaborate on the opportunities that could come from co-operation between Canada and Europe.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will go straight to the example that I was giving during my speech, and that was the production of the hemp plant and the fibre that comes with it. I know that this market has been significantly developed in the EU, and they have a real demand for the basic product, the hemp plant itself.

I cannot speak for the rest of the country, but we have an opportunity, specifically in northern Alberta, with available land. We have farmers who are looking for a new product in order to increase their profitability. Here is a huge opportunity for an interplay. We can get the equipment and the plants grown here, and have the raw product shipped over there, where they need more of it for their current production facilities

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

It is my privilege to speak on behalf of the residents of Kitchener—Conestoga on such an important piece of legislation that would have a huge impact on our local economy, as well as the entire Canadian economy.

Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states, better known as CETA, is a landmark agreement. This landmark agreement is a result of years of hard work, especially by our world-class trade negotiators, who did most of the heavy lifting.

I would also like to acknowledge the incredible hard work of my colleagues, the member for Abbotsford, the former trade minister, and also the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, the former agriculture minister, who did a lot of work to ensure that this free trade agreement would, in fact, be put in place and benefit so many sectors in our society, not the least of which is the agriculture sector, which is largely represented in the riding of Kitchener—Conestoga. We welcome the opportunity to bring the deal into force.

With 28 member states, the EU represents 500 million people and annual economic activity of almost $20 trillion. The EU is the world's largest economy. It is also the world's largest importing market for goods. The EU's annual imports alone are worth more than Canada's GDP.

Conservatives have always been the party of free trade. We will continue to be the party that stands up for free trade, because we know that with free trade comes higher-quality competition and co-operation among countries for shares of economic prosperity.

Between 2006 and 2015, under the leadership of Stephen Harper and exceptional ministers of international trade, the previous government was instrumental in negotiating not only CETA but many other free trade agreements globally. For example, the Conservative government brought negotiated free trade and saw the agreements come into force with Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, Peru, Colombia, Jordan, Panama, Honduras, and South Korea.

Today in Canada one in five Canadian jobs is linked to trade. In strengthening Canada's trade relations, we support these existing jobs, as well as job creation and economic growth. We know that the free flow of goods and services creates jobs and economic growth for all Canadians, and that is why I am proud to have been part of a government that always championed free trade globally.

It is because of all of this I am very disappointed that the trans-Pacific partnership seems to be in jeopardy as I truly believe that it, too, could have unleashed great economic prosperity within each country that was involved in its negotiations. However, I will be supporting this piece of legislation and expect members of the House to be unanimous as it stands to benefit the constituents of every single one of our ridings. However, based on comments from many of my NDP colleagues, it again looks like they will vote against jobs and more opportunity for their constituents.

A joint Canada-EU study that supported the launch of negotiations concluded that a trade agreement with the EU could bring a 20% boost in bilateral trade and a $12-billion annual increase to Canada's economy, the economic equivalent of adding $1,000 to the average Canadian family's income or almost 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy. This trade agreement is about job creation for Canadians.

These increases would be made possible, because when CETA comes into force, nearly 100% of all EU tariff lines on non-agricultural products will be duty-free, along with close to 94% of all EU tariff lines of agricultural products. This is especially important for Canada's beef, pork, grain and oilseeds producers. These sectors would benefit greatly from the implementation of CETA.

Canadian service suppliers would also have the best market access the EU has ever granted to its other free trade agreement partners. Why is this so substantial? This service industry employs more than 13 million Canadians and accounts for 70% of Canada's total GDP.

The Canada-EU trade agreement would also give Canadian suppliers of goods and services secure, preferential access to the world's largest procurement market. The EU's $3.3 trillion government procurement market will provide them with significant new export opportunities. The agreement expands and secures opportunities for Canadian firms to supply their goods and services to the EU's 28 member states and thousands of regional and municipal government entities.

In the Waterloo region, we have a well-known high-tech sector as well as advanced manufacturing. These companies stand to gain access to a huge market share in the EU, companies like Ontario Drive and Gear, which manufacturers the all-terrain vehicle Argo and also manufactures high quality gear products; companies like MyoVision, Clearpath Robotics, Olympia, which manufacturers ice clearing machines similar to the Zamboni but much better than the Zamboni, plus many other startups that are coming out of the Waterloo region.

I also spoke earlier about the benefit to the agricultural sector in my riding of beef, pork, grain, and oilseeds.

Allow me to highlight an award-winning dairy farm in my riding, producing what is clearly the greatest cheese in all of Canada. I am talking about Mountainoak Cheese. I would urge all my colleagues, specifically those from southwestern Ontario, if they have not visited Mountainoak Cheese, it is an absolute must, especially for cheese lovers.

Mountainoak Cheese is the recipient of several awards, a few recent ones being first place for the three-year-old cheese in the hard cheese class; first place for its farmstead mild in the semi-firm cheese class. At the 2016 cheese competition at the Royal, its gold was first for the interior ripened Edam, Gouda, Asiago category and the grand champion variety cheese reserve.

Mountainoak has become so well known that even Rick Mercer recently visited to help it make some cheese.

I share this because it is businesses like these that will greatly benefit from the lower tariffs found in CETA specifically pertaining to specialty cheeses. They will be able to bring their award-winning cheese to the EU and make us in Kitchener—Conestoga even prouder than we already are.

I remember when we signed this free trade agreement. The dairy industry had big concerns about the 3% import of cheese into the Canadian market. Because I knew about Mountainoak Cheese and other high quality cheese producers in Canada, I was convinced from the very beginning that if Canadian cheese producers were given the access to European markets, they had nothing to fear in terms of imports. In fact, by expanding their ability to ship into the European market, they would actually expand their ability to produce more and better quality cheese.

In conclusion, and keeping the dairy industry in mind, I would like to discuss the promises that our previous government made to this sector in order to help them with the transition into this new free trade agreement. I would also expect that the Liberal government would also honour commitments made to vital sectors of our economy, namely, the supply managed dairy industry as well as commitments made to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of the CETA fisheries investment fund.

Last week I rose in the House and asked the Minister of International Trade whether he would make the commitment to maintaining these assurances, specifically to the dairy industry, as I had met with the dairy industry just the day prior. Unfortunately, when I asked the minister this question, I was not given a straight answer. If the government were to withdraw or minimize the measures our government made to the dairy industry and to other supply managed sectors, in my opinion, it would be pulling the rug out from under these industries that had been relying upon these promises in order to make the transition.

As CETA approaches its final implementation, our party will continue to hold the Liberal government to account and ensure that Canadians will reap the rewards of free trade. I urge all my colleagues to support this trade agreement because it is in the interests of every Canadian and it is in the interests of creating new jobs and opportunities for Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, this agreement has been in the making for a number of years. I earlier made reference to the many individuals involved in putting this together. Some of the finest negotiators in the world, I would argue, work for Global Affairs, and we are privileged to have that kind of capability and the ability to get the deals done that are so important to Canada.

My question for the member is related to the Canada–European Union trade deal compared to the Ukraine agreement. The New Democrats, for example, are voting in favour of the Ukraine deal and are voting against this particular agreement. The Conservatives and the Liberals are voting in favour of both agreements. Does the member differentiate anything of significance between the two agreements, beyond stating the obvious, which is the special relationship we have with Ukraine and the sense of pride in getting that one signed off? Does the member have any other thoughts in regard to the two agreements we have been dealing with over the last little while?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say right up front that I do not consider myself an expert on the Canada–Ukraine free trade agreement. I have not studied it in preparation for this debate today.

Let me highlight again how important it is that we follow through with our commitments on the Canada–European Union free trade agreement because of the economic benefits it will bring to virtually every sector of our society. I mentioned the service sector, the agricultural sector, and the high-tech sector. There are so many sectors that would benefit from this free trade agreement, and if we fail on this, we are going to deny access to a huge market that is actually eager to receive the high-quality Canadian goods we produce and manufacture here in Canada.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question I asked earlier, simply because I think the member's colleague might have misinterpreted what I was asking. It was about the fact that when we finished negotiations for this treaty, it happened concurrently with the Brexit vote in the U.K.

In negotiating this treaty with the European Union, we obviously made some concessions because of the fact that we have a huge amount trade with the European Union, but almost half of that is with Britain. I wonder what the member feels about giving up concessions in this treaty, which now we may not get the benefits from, because Britain is not part of this treaty. I know we can do another treaty with the U.K., but we obviously need some assurances that this will not be a negative consequence.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the uncertainty around Brexit and those particular issues, I do not, as a member of Parliament, speculate as to the outcome of not having Britain as part of the EU free trade agreement. I am still convinced that the free trade agreement with the EU, even without Britain being part of it, will be a major advantage for all Canadians.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about Canada's place in the world. I was wondering if the member could comment on the concept of competitiveness. We have a Liberal government that, with this trade agreement, almost blew it. The Liberals put in policies such as raising taxes, a new carbon tax, and things along these lines.

Why are free trade agreements so important right now when we are looking at global competitiveness? Could the member mention the uniqueness now for Canada? With the North American free trade agreement, we have access to all of North America. We will be the only country in the world that has access to North America plus the European Union and potentially Asia, if that moves forward. Could the member talk about the importance to our competitiveness in that regard?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we look at the current situation in terms of our relationship with the U.S., I think all of us in this House would agree that if there were ever a point where it was important that we sign more free trade agreements with more countries and diversify our ability to trade, it is this point, when we may be under threat of not having the same access to the U.S. market that we have now.

We add to that the possibility of higher taxes in Canada. For companies that are looking to invest in Canada, if they suddenly have a tax advantage in a neighbouring country, we can see that the business decision would definitely be in favour of the country with lower taxes. Therefore, it is important that Canada's business taxes stay low and that we do not add a carbon tax, in total contrast to our neighbours to the south. This would further damage our Canadian economy, for sure.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour to rise again to speak in the debate regarding the free trade agreement with Europe which has taken many years to negotiate. It was done when many of us actually were not here in the House. I was one of the new MPs last year and while I have not been part of the process to secure this deal, I certainly congratulate both the previous government and the current government on the work they have been doing. I do not think Canadians are sitting at home wanting us to pat ourselves on the back, but I think it certainly needs to be recognized that there was significant work done on both sides of the House. This is perhaps an example where we can identify parties running in the same direction and certainly putting Canadian interests ahead of any political ones.

Mr. Speaker, you will know Barrie Welding because you are just up the highway from this company. It is certainly a great company that does a lot of business in Europe. When I originally spoke with them about the Canada-Europe Union free trade agreement, about CETA, one of the things that came out in the conversation was that they are not looking for any government handouts. They are not looking for the government to somehow prop up the business they are doing. What they are looking for is a good trade environment, a strong trade environment, which CETA certainly works toward, and stability in the marketplace, meaning that they do not want to see tax changes that would put the company at a disadvantage with its competitors, either inside or outside the country. They want a good stable place to do business to ensure that their investment is made on good information and they will be able to reap the rewards of that investment. The reward for our municipality, for Simcoe County as well, is that the company is a strong employer, with many employees. In fact, it employs in the range of 600 persons.

When I look at trade overall, it certainly is a huge issue for the Canadian economy going forward. Diversification of our trade agenda was something the previous government worked on, with over 40 agreements signed.

With this one in particular, we now have access to a market of 500 million people, with $20 trillion a year in economic activity. This is a huge deal for the Canadian government. It is a huge deal for the Canadian public. It is very timely considering everything that is going on in the world. Diversification is something that perhaps has never been so paramount for the Canadian economy when considering what we are doing with the U.S.

We cannot be too reliant on the U.S. Traditionally, our strongest trading partner continues to be the U.S., but let us just imagine for a second that there was a U.S. president who wanted to tackle trade with Canada and there is a potential that we were going to see a reduction in that trade. This is certainly highlighting the opportunity with Europe, as well as the idea that we need to follow through and diversify and reduce our reliance upon our American counterparts south of the border.

When we look at the deal that was negotiated under the previous government, there were many tenets to it. It is a huge trade deal, but there were a couple of items which I know stood out for the people of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte. One of the unique things about the riding I represent is that we have both agriculture, a large rural area, as well as an inner city. The previous speaker and I have that in common. This was a trade agreement that had a wide-ranging effect on our economy, because we have both supply-managed farmers and on the other side we have great big manufacturers. About 15 minutes away from Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte is a Honda plant that employs thousands. The word “plant” does not really describe what it is. It is more of a complex. This is certainly one of the local manufacturers that was seeing a positive return from CETA.

In fact, when I look at the supply-managed farmers, there was a decision regarding 17,000 tonnes of cheese and potential compensation available for those individual farmers, based on the loss of quota, etc. This was something that was committed to by the previous government. It included both CETA and the potential for TPP negotiations, which are certainly up in the air at this point. However, it was something that had been communicated to both this Parliament and the agricultural sector.

Unfortunately, one of the things that the government has not done is clearly articulate what its intentions are with regards to this piece of the trade agreement. We certainly do not want to see the government trading away supply management without the proper compensation put in place, as this is, after all, a government program. It is the government that has created this artificial value to the quota itself.

This has bred some uncertainty into the agricultural sector with regards to milk, cheese, etc., and just as it was in the manufacturing sector, the agricultural sector is looking for certainty and stability. It wants to know what the cost of doing business is going to be and certainly wants to know what the return on investment is in terms of a best case prediction and business plan going forward.

I will fast forward to Honda. I believe on March 15, 2015, and it might have been a little later in the month, there was an announcement made by the then prime minister, Stephen Harper, and the Canadian CEO of Honda Canada at the Honda plant in Alliston, that 40,000 vehicles, Honda CRVs, would be manufactured in that plant. There was going to be some retrofitting going on within the facility to allow Honda to create vehicles that would be used in Europe. This was going to spur a $100-million investment by Honda Canada in the facility. Now we understand from Honda that it is no longer applicable and it is not going to produce those vehicles there. This comes back to the whole idea of stability and what is going on in the marketplace.

Since the original CETA decision was made by the previous government, we have seen some things change. It is clearly having an effect on Canadian jobs. It is having an effect on Canadian investment within manufacturing, and the result is that there will no longer be 40,000 vehicles built at Honda in Alliston and sent across to Europe. This means we are actually losing out on opportunity, we are losing out on jobs, and we are losing out on investment in Canadian manufacturing.

This is what changed. Previously, we had a government that said it would reduce small business taxes. In fact, today's government actually agreed and said that it would also reduce small business taxes, yet failed to follow through on that. We have a government today that is increasing taxes through a carbon tax, and $50 per tonne of carbon is now going to be a tax going forward. It is being phased in from 2018 to 2022. It is having, obviously, a detrimental effect on the manufacturing sector.

The third piece was the cost of labour. We have seen payroll taxes coming down the line. Obviously it started with ORPP in Ontario and morphed into CPP nationally, and this is having a detrimental effect, a very bad effect, on the job market. The result that we have seen both across the country and in Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte is that there is less investment, fewer jobs being created, and therefore more jobs being sent overseas, 53,000 last year alone.

Trade is not the only component to a strong economy. We want to have open arms to trade agreements with jurisdictions that we see a strong business case for, but we cannot kill our competitiveness at the same time. What the current government is doing through these increased taxes is killing our competitiveness while opening up these new trade agreements. Therefore, we would ask that Liberals to ensure that with all of our policies going forward, they change on the tax side to make Canada competitive again. Certainly we will support and follow through on CETA.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy the member is focusing on job creation. That is very important to this government. In fact, we made record-breaking investments in infrastructure, and that is just one example of the many things this government has done to create jobs.

The opposition has voted against these investments. It is not in favour of these massive investments in infrastructure in order to create jobs. The member did a lot of criticizing about job creation, but he did not talk specifically about what CETA would do for job creation.

How will this agreement actually create jobs in our country?

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about record investments in infrastructure. I came from the private sector. In that sector, I did not judge my success by how much money I spent. I judged my success by the results achieved.

Unfortunately, the government is focusing on how much taxpayer money it can take out of government coffers and spend. It is not focusing on the jobs being created on the other side. That is why there are 53,000 fewer manufacturing jobs this year. That is why there are 29,000 fewer people working in natural resources this year. That is why there are 19,000 fewer people working in agriculture this year.

I would ask the government to focus on results, not just money.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support CETA. We support free trade with Ukraine. We also support the TPP. All of these items were created under the Conservative government. However, there seems to be a lack of vision and will by the current government on the next steps.

In industry, we always look down the road. In construction, we always look at, as it is ironically called, what is in the pipeline for future business. It is not just enough to do something today. We have to be looking a year or two years from now to keep things rolling. The Conservatives do not really see anything down the pipeline, and I am greatly concerned.

Does my colleague share the same concern that the government has done nothing else to kick-start the TPP or any other free trade agreement?

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen from the government, when it comes to the economy, is lack of a plan overall. It actually does not matter whether we are talking about trade, or the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, or the things the Conservatives hope would be included in a plan to create jobs in Canada. There is no plan. Nothing has been tabled or put forward, except for a 14-page report by an innovation committee that the minister struck.

Unfortunately, we will continue to be unable to follow a course to success and prosperity in Canada unless an agenda and a plan is put forward. It is not just about having an agenda or a plan; it is also about executing it properly.

I certainly join the member in waiting for this big master plan that we heard about during the entire election campaign, but have not seen a single piece put forward.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to speak to the third reading of Bill C-30 , the implementing legislation for the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, otherwise known as CETA.

I know there are those in the House who are quick to dismiss the opposition to this trade agreement, but I would remind all members that this is the people's House and these concerns deserve to have their say here in the heart of our democracy.

I also find it interesting that in today's debate, Liberal members of Parliament have decided to sit out and leave the heavy lifting to the NDP and the Conservatives. Perhaps they have grown tired of trying to defend this supposedly progressive trade deal. Be that as it may, I am proud to stand here today to provide a reasoned and principled progressive opposition to this implementation bill.

I want to start my speech by talking about the rushed process which the bill has gone through. I would go back to the solemn promise that the Prime Minister made in his open and accountable government publication, that ministers were to treat Parliament with respect and provide the necessary information for us to do our jobs. I quote from that publication:

Clear ministerial accountability to Parliament is fundamental to responsible government, and requires that Ministers provide Parliament with the information it needs to fulfill its roles of legislating, approving the appropriation of funds and holding the government to account. The Prime Minister expects Ministers to demonstrate respect and support for the parliamentary process.

When we look at what happened with Bill C-30, on October 30, 2016, the Prime Minister signed CETA at the Canada-EU leaders summit, and the implementing legislation was basically put forward on October 31. This rushed process violated the government's own policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, which requires the government to table a copy of the treaty along with an explanatory memorandum outlining key components of the treaty at least 21 sitting days before the legislation is presented.

This is just one more broken promise in a string of broken promises. The fact that the government violated its very own policy on this just shows how quickly the government forgets the principles for which it was elected.

We are also aware that all is not well among the members of the European Union. We know there have been several protests with over 100,000 people in attendance at each. In fact, the German constitutional challenge against CETA has garnered 125,000 signatures, and a recently launched referendum campaign in the Netherlands has collected over 200,000 signatures.

I do not believe that this opposition can be pegged simply on a rising tide of protectionism. There are very concrete reasons that people are opposed to CETA. What we have here is that Parliament is essentially being asked to write a blank cheque with this legislation to give the government the power to go ahead with it when we know that each one of the 28 member states of the EU still has to ratify this and it is a process that is expected to take anywhere from two to five years. Again, the question is, why do we have this rushed process?

To get to the crux of our opposition to this bill, it is about the investor-state dispute, the investor court system that is part of this agreement. New Democrats support trade deals that reduce tariffs and boost exports. If only we had a trade deal that was doing just that, but when we have components like investor-state provisions that threaten the sovereignty of our country and the ability of our country to make laws for the good of this place and its people, we believe those have no place in trade deals. The investor court system still allows foreign investors to seek compensation from any level of government over policy decisions that they feel impact their profits.

Earlier, I had an exchange with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on the rule of law. I think the rule of law has three constituent components to it: legality, democracy, and human rights.

Legality has to do with the fact that the bills are passed in a democratically elected House of Commons. They have a process they go through: first, second, and third readings, royal assent, and so on. Democracy comes from the fact that the members of the House who propose laws are democratically elected and are accountable to the people. Constitutionality comes from the fact that all laws that we make in this place are subject to the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I think he misinterpreted what I was trying to get at in our argument about the democratic accountability of the investor court system. I feel that when we have an investor court system that can supersede the democratically elected people's representatives, be they at the municipal, provincial, or federal level, that does not satisfy my definition of the rule of law. I think the rule of law is being superseded by a system that is profoundly undemocratic. Never mind that it was set up by an elected majority, which by the way, got there with 39% of the vote. It is the fact that it is able to overturn or sue lower levels of government precisely because of the way they are acting.

To give a perfect example, for my constituents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, we have a contaminated soil dump that is causing great grief to the local community. It is a gravelled area that is now taking in contaminated soil, and the company in question is, of course, receiving money for all the contaminated soil it is bringing in. The local government, and even the provincial government, have realized the error of their ways, and now there may be a process afoot to try to reverse that contaminated soil.

If we had an agreement in place like CETA, and it was a foreign company operating there, it could basically sue the local government and sue the provincial government for the loss in profits, for dumping contaminated soil in an area that supplies drinking water to a local community. Where, in all that is logical, does that make sense? For the residents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, my home riding, that puts in perspective what this could allow foreign companies to do.

The other thing we in the NDP have gone over is pharmaceutical costs. I used to serve as the New Democratic Party critic and spokesperson for seniors. I have handed that off to the member for North Island—Powell River, and she is doing a great job. We have testimony from the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association, an association that is an expert on this subject. It had a study prepared for it that showed that the proposals in this agreement would delay the introduction of new generic medicines in Canada by an average of three and a half years. The cost to pharmaceutical payers for this delay was estimated to be $2.8 billion annually, based on generic prices in 2010.

I have been helping seniors in my riding for many years. Before I was a member of Parliament, I worked as a constituency assistant. I saw first-hand how seniors are struggling with the cost of living. Many of them, when it comes to the high cost of pharmaceutical drugs, either do not take their dosage or take less than what is recommended by a doctor. This can lead to cascading health effects down the line. Why in the world would we institute a system that would increase the cost of pharmaceuticals, when all the talk in Parliament these days, and a lot of pressure, is on how we can institute a national pharmacare system to bring these costs down? It seems to be at odds.

We know from our conversations with small businesses, the small businesses in my riding, that they want more consistency. We know they want fewer regulations and they want standards that are simple to comply with: simple border processes, less paperwork, and lower costs. If we had a trade deal that was actually just about trade, the free movement of goods, and making sure tariffs were being lowered, we could deal with that. However, this implementing legislation contains a laundry list of acts of Parliament and regulations that are going to have to be changed. It is a 140-page bill, and it goes way beyond trade.

We believe that greater access to European markets is great for Canadian goods, but just as with the TPP, CETA is a massive trade and investment deal that makes significant changes on investor rights, intellectual property, pharmaceutical drugs, and more. I believe that Canada must maintain its sovereignty over the ability to make policy for the good of the country and its residents, and I will stand and defend that for as long as I can.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the CETA trade deal is a good thing. The European Union is a group of countries that share many similar values that we have here in Canada. Not only that, I believe it offers the opportunity of creating more jobs, and the potential for high-skills jobs in our country.

I wonder how the member can justify throwing away future potential growth with the number of jobs that we could have in this country.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, no one on this side is advocating that we throw that opportunity away. I would like to know how those key components, like the cost of pharmaceuticals to our seniors, matches with his government's plan of a national pharmacare plan. How does the fact that we can have this investor court system somehow challenge the laws of our local municipalities and provincial governments make for the good of our citizens? If we are able to remove that specific provision, we would absolutely start looking at it.

I agree with the member that trade with Europe is important. We have a common history and a common culture, and a lot of us speak the same language. These are countries that we want to do business with. They are democratically elected governments and so on. However, because of the provisions I outlined in my speech, on this side of the House, we have to maintain a principled opposition for those very reasons.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all of us New Democrats did our due diligence around this piece of legislation, and I do not think the same can be said for other members of this House. This is an incredibly vast piece of legislation. This is the largest trade deal that we would sign since NAFTA.

It is a false premise to say that because we have a close relationship with Europe that there are not concerns with this deal. Europeans feel that there are concerns with this deal, and the likelihood of this passing through the member states is extremely low. Are we going to have our relationship with Europe hinge on European member states voting against an agreement that we have an opportunity to fix? It is too important to get it wrong. We should be fixing it.

I would like to say something around the ISDS or the investor court system that the member brought up, his concerns around what could happen, and the implications at the municipal and provincial levels. This is a provision that has not worked well for Canada. Chapter 11 in NAFTA has seen us be the most sued country in the world. Chapter 11 in NAFTA is the first time that we have had this provision between two developed countries. This has therefore not always existed between two developed nations.

I believe that we have a progressive court system in our country that can solve any trade issues that we bring. I wonder if the member can speak to that and whether he feels we should be signing trade agreements that include provisions that sign away our sovereignty.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with my friend from Essex. I have absolute confidence in our Federal Court system. I believe that the judiciary, the legislative branch, and the executive in our country already have a good working relationship. I do not see that they need to interrupt that.

I will always take the side of defending Canada's sovereignty in its ability to make policy for the good of local citizens. If the Liberals and the Conservatives want to take the side of foreign corporations coming in and having the ability to challenge our local governments, I will take on that argument any day of the week.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I request that the recorded division on the third reading of Bill C-30, the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic trade agreement implementation act, be deferred until the expiry of the time provided for oral questions tomorrow, Tuesday, February 14.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, the recorded division is deferred until tomorrow, February 14, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am sure if you were to canvass the House, you would see the will at this point to see the clock at 6:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is it the pleasure of the House to see the clock at 6:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from February 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, an act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to order made Monday, February 13, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-30.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #196

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. Normally we do not recognize the absence of a member, but I know that the Prime Minister and all members of the House would join me in recognizing the incredible hard work of the member for Abbotsford on the Canada-EU free trade agreement.